# Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · September 9, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1507 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1507?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-09-09 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 12,879 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on September 9, 2010, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Carolyn Richardson presiding. The meeting addressed a total of 10 agenda items spanning subdivision plans, development plans, and a proposed design guideline amendment. Over the course of the meeting, the Commission took 11 votes, heard no public comments, and received no presentations. The agenda was divided between items that moved forward and those that were held back for further consideration. Four subdivision or development plan items — PLAN 2010-86F (Gess Property, Unit 11-D), PLAN 2005-166F (Clark Property Unit 1-B, Sec. 2), PLAN 2007-156F (Clark Property, Unit 1-M), and the Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit item — were approved. Six items were postponed, including PLAN 2010-73F (Cadentown-Flat Rock Realty, LLC), DP 2010-45 (Palumbo Property, Tract A – Hope Center), DP 2010-46 (L.T. Ruth Property – AMD), DP 2010-15 (Gess Property, Unit 8), DP 2006-65 (Blackford Property, Phases 1 & 2), and a proposed amendment to the "Big Box" Design Guidelines. ## Attendance The following members were present at the September 9, 2010 Commission meeting: - Carolyn Richardson - Mike Cravens - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Marie Copeland - Mike Owens - William Wilson - Patrick Brewer - Ed Holmes **Absent:** Eunice Beatty, Derek Paulsen No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions All votes at the September 9, 2010 Commission meeting were unanimous, with 8 ayes and 0 nays on each item. **Postponements** - **PLAN 2010-73F: CADENTOWN-FLAT ROCK REALTY, LLC** was postponed to September 23, 2010. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by William Wilson. (8–0) [timestamp: 0:03:32] - **DP 2010-45: PALUMBO PROPERTY, TRACT A (HOPE CENTER)** was postponed to October 14, 2010. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens. (8–0) [timestamp: 0:04:33] - **DP 2010-46: L.T. RUTH PROPERTY (AMD)** was postponed to October 14, 2010. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens. (8–0) [timestamp: 0:05:42] - **DP 2010-15: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 8** was postponed to October 14, 2010. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. (8–0) [timestamp: 0:07:00] - **DP 2006-65: BLACKFORD PROPERTY, PHASES 1 & 2** was postponed to November 11, 2010. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens. (8–0) [timestamp: 0:08:00] - The proposed amendment to the **'Big Box' Design Guidelines** was postponed to September 23, 2010. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Ed Holmes. (8–0) [timestamp: 0:09:21] **Approvals** - The **remaining Consent Agenda items** were approved. Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Mike Owens. (8–0) [timestamp: 0:14:47] - **PLAN 2010-86F: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 11-D** was approved with conditions. Approval was granted without condition #10 for lots 122–126 and 156–162, excluding lots 17–25. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. (8–0) [timestamp: 0:32:22] - **PLAN 2005-166F: CLARK PROPERTY UNIT 1-B, SEC. 2** was approved with a one-year extension. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. (8–0) [timestamp: 1:55:41] - **PLAN 2007-156F: CLARK PROPERTY, UNIT 1-M** was approved with a one-year extension. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. (8–0) [timestamp: 1:57:59] - The **release and call of bonds** as written in the memorandum from Chris King was approved. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. (8–0) [timestamp: 1:59:08] All votes were cast by Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Marie Copeland, Mike Owens, William Wilson, Patrick Brewer, and Ed Holmes. ## Contested Items **PLAN 2010-86F: Gess Property, Unit 11-D** This item generated significant discussion among Commission members during the September 9, 2010 meeting. The central points of contention involved the installation of a buffer yard fence and the specific conditions that would be attached to any approval of the plan. The structured record does not provide detail on which individual commissioners or parties were on opposing sides of the debate, nor does it specify the exact nature of the disagreements over the fence installation or the precise conditions under discussion. The outcome of the vote or decision on this item is likewise not captured in the available data. *Note: Timestamp information was not available for this agenda item.* ## PLAN 2010-73F: CADENTOWN-FLAT ROCK REALTY, LLC [timestamp: 03:01] This agenda item was brought before the Commission but did not proceed to substantive discussion. Myke Robbins requested a postponement of the plan on behalf of the applicant, Cadentown-Flat Rock Realty, LLC. No presentation was made, no details of the plan were debated, and no concerns were raised during this brief appearance before the Commission. The item was postponed to the September 23, 2010 Commission meeting. ## DP 2010-45: Palumbo Property, Tract A (Hope Center) [timestamp: 04:03] This agenda item concerned Development Plan application DP 2010-45 for the Palumbo Property, Tract A, also identified as the Hope Center. The item was brought before the Commission for discussion, but no substantive presentation or debate took place during the meeting. - **Speaker:** Seth Farmer addressed the Commission on this item. - **Request:** The applicant requested a postponement of the development plan to the **October 14, 2010** meeting. - **Outcome:** The item was **postponed** to the October 14, 2010 meeting, as requested. No additional details regarding the substance of the development plan, concerns from commissioners, or public comment were recorded in connection with this item at this meeting. ## DP 2010-46: L.T. RUTH PROPERTY (AMD) [timestamp: 05:11] This agenda item concerned an amendment to development plan DP 2010-46 for the L.T. Ruth Property. The item was brought before the Commission, with **Matt Carter** identified as the key speaker on the matter. No substantive presentation or debate took place on this item. Carter requested that the Commission postpone consideration of the plan, moving it to the **October 14, 2010 meeting**. No concerns were raised or discussed on the merits of the development plan itself during this session. - **Action requested:** Postponement to the October 14, 2010 Commission meeting - **Outcome:** Postponed as requested ## DP 2010-15: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 8 [timestamp: 07:00] This agenda item concerned a development plan application identified as DP 2010-15, relating to the Gess Property, Unit 8. The item was brought before the Commission as a discussion item during the September 9, 2010 meeting. Rory Kahly was the key speaker associated with this item. Rather than proceeding with a full presentation or substantive discussion of the development plan, the applicant requested that the item be postponed and rescheduled for a later meeting date. **Outcome:** The Commission agreed to postpone consideration of DP 2010-15: Gess Property, Unit 8 to the **October 14, 2010** meeting. No detailed presentation, debate, or review of the plan's merits took place at this session, as the postponement request was made at the outset of the item's consideration. ## DP 2006-65: BLACKFORD PROPERTY, PHASES 1 & 2 [timestamp: 08:00] This agenda item concerned Development Permit application DP 2006-65 for the Blackford Property, Phases 1 & 2. The item was brought before the Commission as a discussion item, with Rory Kahly identified as the key speaker. No substantive presentation or debate took place on the merits of the development permit. Instead, the applicant requested a postponement of the plan, asking that the item be deferred to the **November 11, 2010 meeting**. The Commission accommodated the request, and the item was **postponed** accordingly. No concerns were raised on the record regarding the application itself during this meeting. ## Proposed Amendment to the 'Big Box' Design Guidelines [timestamp: 09:21] Agenda Item 6 concerned a proposed text amendment to the "Big Box" Design Guidelines. The item was brought forward by Bill Sallee, who requested on behalf of staff that the Commission postpone consideration of the proposed amendment. The item was not substantively discussed or debated at this meeting. Staff asked that the matter be continued to the Commission's next scheduled meeting on **September 23, 2010**, at which point the amendment would be presented for fuller consideration. The Commission agreed to the postponement, and no decision on the merits of the proposed amendment was reached at this time. ## PLAN 2010-86F: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 11-D [timestamp: 32:22] The Commission took up Plan 2010-86F concerning the Gess Property, Unit 11-D, with discussion centered on the installation of a buffer yard fence. Key speakers during this agenda item included Chris Taylor, Rory Kahly, and Howard Cruse. The plan was presented and debated with respect to the proposed buffer yard fence and its applicability across the relevant lots within the unit. The discussion addressed conditions under which approval would be appropriate, including whether certain lots should be excluded from the plan's requirements. The Commission ultimately approved Plan 2010-86F with conditions, specifically excluding certain lots from the scope of the approval. The record does not detail which individual lots were excluded or the precise reasoning behind each exclusion beyond the general discussion of the buffer yard fence installation. ## PLAN 2005-166F: Clark Property Unit 1-B, Sec. 2 [timestamp: 1:55:41] The Commission took up Agenda Item 8, a discussion item concerning Plan 2005-166F: Clark Property Unit 1-B, Section 2. - **Speaker:** Rory Kahly presented on behalf of the applicant. - **Request:** The applicant sought a one-year extension for Section 2 of the plan. - **Outcome:** The Commission approved the requested one-year extension. No additional concerns, debate, or dissenting discussion are reflected in the available record for this item. ## PLAN 2007-156F: CLARK PROPERTY, UNIT 1-M [timestamp: 1:57:59] The Commission took up Agenda Item 9, concerning Plan 2007-156F for the Clark Property, Unit 1-M. Rory Kahly appeared before the Commission as the key speaker on this matter. The applicant requested a one-year extension for the plan. The Commission considered the request and approved the one-year extension. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 1:59:08] The Commission took up Agenda Item 10, addressing the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit. Chris King presented the item, with the discussion and action guided by a memorandum prepared by Mr. King outlining the specific bonds to be released and called. The Commission approved the release and call of bonds as written in Mr. King's memorandum. **Outcome:** Approved --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2010-73F: CADENTOWN-FLAT ROCK REALTY, LLC to September 23, 2010 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2010-45: PALUMBO PROPERTY, TRACT A (HOPE CENTER) to October 14, 2010 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2010-46: L.T. RUTH PROPERTY (AMD) to October 14, 2010 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2010-15: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 8 to October 14, 2010 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2006-65: BLACKFORD PROPERTY, PHASES 1 & 2 to November 11, 2010 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone proposed amendment to the 'Big Box' Design Guidelines to September 23, 2010 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve remaining items on the Consent Agenda - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve PLAN 2010-86F: GESS PROPERTY, UNIT 11-D with conditions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve PLAN 2005-166F: CLARK PROPERTY UNIT 1-B, SEC. 2 with a one-year extension - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve PLAN 2007-156F: CLARK PROPERTY, UNIT 1-M with a one-year extension - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve release and call of bonds as written on the memorandum from Mr. Chris King --- ## Full transcript 你 詞曲 李宗盛 演唱 李宗盛 演唱 李宗盛 演唱 李宗盛 請叫餐點 我們現在沒有任何提交文件 因此我們將通過延遲或撤回 我們有任何問題嗎? 我叫Mike Robbins 我是Foster Rowland Inc的代表 如果您願意的話,我會把您的注意力轉移到第一頁 項目B 最後一項策略 策略是2010-7-3-F 是Cadentown Flat Rock Realty LLC 我會要求兩個星期的延遲 謝謝 兩個星期的延遲,莎莉先生,什麼時候呢? 女士主席,您的時間是9月23日 好的 我們會延遲2010-7-3-F嗎? 女士主席,我們會延遲兩個星期的延遲 9月23日 9月23日 所有人都同意嗎? 所有人都同意嗎? 所有人都同意嗎? 所有人都同意嗎? 所有人都同意嗎? 謝謝 謝謝 你好,我是Carmen的Seth Farmer 我會延遲 Pumbo Property的第五頁 DP 2010-45 Pumbo Property的第四頁 Hope Center 好,要延遲多久? 我猜應該是兩個星期吧 一個月 一個月 好的 這個時間點會是? 您的會議時間是10月14日 您的會議時間是10月14日 我們會延遲一個月的延遲到10月14日嗎? 女士主席,我們會延遲DP 2010-45 Pumbo Property的第五頁 非常感謝 女士議員 各位委員 我的名字是Matt Carter 我是Vision Engineering的副主席 如果您看看第五頁的議程 項目 EDP2010-46LT Roof Property 我們要求一個月的延遲 到10月14日的會議 謝謝 為了一個月的延遲EP2010-46 到10月14日的會議 我聽到請求 女士議員 我會延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日 我們要求一個月的延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 謝謝 我們要求一個月的延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我聽到請求 女士議員 我們要求一個月的延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我們要求一個月的延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 謝謝 我們要求一個月的延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我聽到請求 女士議員 我聽到請求 兩個月的會議 11月11日的會議 11月11日 我聽到請求兩個月的延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 兩個月 女士議員 我會延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我聽到請求兩個月的延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 我會延遲EP2006-65LT Roof Property 直到10月11日的會議 第二 第二 請大家說應保證 應保證 保證 保證 謝謝 謝謝 女士議員 如果沒有其他要求 請大家說應保證 保證 保證 謝謝 我會延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我聽到請求兩個月的延遲EP2010-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我聽到請大家說應保證 保證 保證 我會延遲EP20-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我聽到請大家說應保證 保證 保證 謝謝 我會延遲EP20-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我聽到請大家說應保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 我會延遲EP20-46LT Roof Property 直到10月14日的會議 我聽到請大家說應保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 保證 changed renewed are are are are are do do do are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are are We will move along to the staff opportunity to set up the first They wish to have a motion, oh, yes, on the consent agenda. I just thought you're exactly right. Madam chair, and I move that we accept the consent agenda, um, as presented by the staff, excluding page 3, Item F planned 2010, dash 86 F guest property unit 11 D and the Lexington Mall property, which is DP 2010 dash 51. Sarah second. Motion's been made and second, please vote electronically. Motion carries and we will pull those two items. The rest will remain on the consent agenda. Thank you, Madam chair. We'll set up for the first item and be prepared to begin our presentation in just a moment. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Mm. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. Mm. Okay. Okay. All right. The first item on the agenda is on page three. It is, uh, item F plan. 2010-86 F. The guest property unit 11 D. This is a final record plat for property located at 46 18 Sperling Drive. The subject property. Mhm. It's in the guest development. It's located off of Athens, Boones Borough and Hayes Boulevard off of Marcus Trail to Wilman Way. This particular plat. This is part of the overall development plan for guest unit 11. The section that is in at this time is 11 D. It backs up to the 100 ft U. S. Urban service area boundary in this area is for 21 lots for this unit. The subdivision committee recommended approval at its last meeting subject to the 12 conditions on your agenda, including our standards sign off items as well as a few cleaning conditions. There was quite a bit of discussion regarding condition number 10, which was to not document the installation of a 100 ft U. S. A. Boundary buffer yard, according to Article 23 A of your sort of your zoning ordinance that is handed out to you on a packet staple here. It is actually referenced as three separate sections of the ordinance that pertain to fencing along agricultural areas or buffers yards for the rural service area. Two of those sections are in Article 23 A and the third being in our subdivision regulations. Article 6-3 B. The development plan contains a note pertaining to the timing of the construction of that buffer yard. It is to be done prior to recordation of record plats. So the note as it reads is to document the installation prior to the recordation of this plat for unit 11 D. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Does the commission have any questions? Mr. Owens. Yeah, since I pulled this off, my only question is in regards to number 10, the documentation of the installation of the 100 ft buffer. There was quite a bit of discussion in the subdivision. Do you know, have there been any sort of an agreement with the staff? The staff has not received a copy of an agreement, so we haven't had anything to review. But the condition addresses, the condition states that they have to meet the requirement. If they reach an agreement under the ordinance that allows them to work with something out with the adjacent property owner, they can submit that for the Planning Commission to review, but the staff has not received that yet. Okay. Does Mr. Kaley know anything? Are there other questions for staff? Not yet, I'm sorry. Rory Kaley with the EA Partners. Howard Cruz is on the way. He's stuck behind a vehicle who's too tall to get into the parking garage. There is an agreement. Ball Holmes has talked to Mr. Guess, the adjoining agricultural owner, and they are working out the wording of what will be done in the buffer yard between the two. I guess my question is, since Chris mentioned, does Article 23 override Article 6? It is our understanding that an agreement reached and approved by this body would satisfy Article 23 as well as the subdivision regulations Article 6. Does that answer your question? Yeah, it sounds like as long as the two property owners can agree to what this fencing screening buffer yard will be, it's acceptable and we're fine with that. Are there additional questions? Mr. Kaley, the only other part of that in the discussion subdivision, you know, this plan addresses a small segment of it. It's my understanding that the buffer was going to be installed along the boundary of the other developments as well? Yes, the expansion area boundary between the guest property development and the guest farm agricultural land extends beyond unit 11. It goes up into 6, I think even into 5 a little bit, and in working with Mr. Guess, now that the development is finally up to his farm, they're going to go ahead and put in the fencing that he's wanting for the full length of it. I do know that we will want to record these lots possibly before the entire fence is put in for a couple thousand feet, I guess. So I'm hoping that the documentation of the agreement is sufficient to move forward as opposed to having to have, I guess, the fencing installed. Is that how the document installation, is the agreement of the installation or is the fence in the ground for the full length of it what planning is looking for to record? Again, this is a development plan note that is stemming pertaining to this record plat. The development plan is pretty clear that it is installation of the actual buffer yard prior to recordation of the plats. So it's expectation is that it would need to be installed. Not only that, this plan, but on both sides. What hasn't been done yet. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I met with Mr. Guess yesterday morning. We basically have an agreement to build the fence. It's our intent to build the fence in its entirety as quickly as possible. I don't think we'll have a problem. I guess if I do, I'll come back. I don't know. But I hate to see us condition the recordation of this plat construction of the fence. Especially when we've recorded what, four or five sections already in the same situation. We have no problem building the fence. And I'll certainly have an agreement in place by the time we're ready to record. But the physical construction of the thing is the part that I'm kind of hanging out on. There may be something out of my control. Are there questions? Additional questions? No, I don't have any other questions. I'm good with wording. Staff have any more comments? This is, again, the condition was placed at the time of the development plan. This is simply a carrying forward of that onto the record plat. It's not an additional condition of this record plat that they installed. It's just noting the development plan condition as it already exists. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? Seeing none, then we'll turn it over to the Commission for any further discussion or for a motion. I guess I have a question for the staff. Is this a bonded item? Not to my knowledge, but I'd have to double-check with Building Inspection Engineering to see if that's something that is allowed. I'm not certain. So if it's not bonded, how do we have any kind of enforcement? It's my understanding that Building Inspection would review and double-check to see that that buffer yard is installed prior to signing off on the plat. Okay, so how do we? We always have a bond for a certain percentage of storm sanitary roadways. I would ask that it be a separate bond so we didn't have to carry that item through the whole process because those can go out for four or five years. I'm not a finance person, so that sort of I just want to make sure that it gets done and in a timely manner. And right now we have a lot of good faith. I hope to maintain the good faith. Chris, did you have a comment? It's my understanding that this item is not bondable. If they would like to come back and request a waiver to that effect, that is something that this body could entertain at that time. If I may, Chris, the way this reads right now, it's my understanding that installation prior to certification. Yes. Certification of this plat before it's recorded. Which, does it tie the other two sides to it? The rest of the buffer that has not been done? Yes, it would be the full installation. Okay, I'm good. Mr. Kramer. I guess I want to try to explain a little bit of background. As you look at the development plan on the board up there, when the development plan was going through, we used to bring to you a final record plat that would have the greenway associated with it that was adjacent. Over the years, we've been requested that the greenway not be chopped into little pieces as it's recorded, but to have one big piece per the unit so that it could be given to the city at that time. I think that this note was talking about those pieces. As each piece would have came in, they wanted to make sure that the fencing was up for that property. Let's see if I can make this more clear. Highlighted here in orange is 11A. When this was recorded, before we would have included this bit of the greenway, it had done all of this. And as we recorded that plat, then the note stating the fencing would be in would have been good. But now that these greenways all have to be on one plat, they're not the first item of development. We don't want to install the fencing first, report that lot, give it all away, and then be in here doing all of our work. So I think that the note as it reads should be that the greenway plat could not be recorded until that fence was installed because it's the greenway that's eventually the city wants. They need that fencing installed so it's not still on the developers responsibilities if the city takes it. So by saying that all of this and trying to include six and five and all the other in the fencing for what you see highlighted in green doesn't seem to fit what the meaning of the note was at the time. I can understand you know fencing section you're looking at, but not tying all of this development up with the fencing for the whole thing. So you want the greenway and the fence to be one group of things that are recorded together? Yes, the greenway needs to be on one plat and we haven't done that because we're not even halfway done with the development yet. So I think that the fencing requirement, I can understand if you'd want you know it fenced up to this far to record 11B so that you know Howard would have a place to start he could come this far, but to hold up this plat for the duration of the rest of this doesn't quite seem fair. So you want to put A and B together? Well A is already recorded, 11B is recorded, 11D is on your agenda what we're talking about now, and 11C is also your agenda, but that was approved because it didn't have any frontage with the greenway. I think you know if that note was to read that the fencing document, the installation of it up to this point, if we all agreed that that was the intent of the note, fence off as much as you're developing at that time. I think that would be more fair than requiring full length of fence installed prior to these 19 lots going. Are there additional questions from? May I make one additional comment? Certainly. I'm not sure where we are in the process here. I'd like to offer a compromise I guess. Can we limit it to the lots that join the buffer instead of the entire plat? In other words, we wouldn't be eligible to record these lots here until such time as. I really don't think it's going to be a problem, but you know how that stuff goes. Getting it done, getting somebody to do it. Yada yada. But I mean I'd certainly be in agreement with that since it's a non-bondable or I mean I can come back and ask for a waiver, which I think is a waste of all our time. I would offer that, that's acceptable to the Commission. I think the staff would prefer that to tying it to the greenway lot. I think the staff would prefer that option to tying it to the greenway lot. There's no timetable for when the greenway lot is in that section of the plat is recorded. It's when the city is ready to take it over. It can be some time before that lot's recorded. I think it would be more appropriate to tie it as Mr. Crew stated. Are there questions? Everybody understand? Can we get a list from staff as to what lots we would be excluding or including for the development plat just so that everyone's clear? It would be for lot 17 through 25. Those are the lots that buffer that border so be excluded. It's a longer non-sequential list. It's lots 122 through 126 and 156 through 162. Are there other questions or comments from Commission? If not, we'll close the discussion and the floor will entertain a motion. Thank you, Chris. Madam Chair, I'll try to take care of this. I'll move for approval of plan 2010-86F guest properties unit 11-D including the lots 122 through 126 and 156 through 162 excluding lots 17 through 25 at this time. And keeping the remainder conditions? And keep the remaining conditions. Is there a second? Motion's been made by Ms. Jones, seconded by Ms. Phillips for plan 2010-86F guest property unit 11-D. All in favor, please say aye and vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 4. It is item C, the bottom of the page, DP 2010-44 Morningside Market. This is for property located on National Avenue at North Ashland Avenue. This is a final development plan that has been brought to you after you recently have approved the preliminary development plan for this area to create an adaptive reuse zone or designation for this particular area. And again, here's Walton Avenue, National Avenue, North Ashland Avenue comes in this direction. This is Given Avenue. National Avenue winds on back through here. You have the CSX railroad track right here. And right in here is the Walton Avenue-Winchester Road intersection as you cross this railroad track. Now, this final development plan depicts the overall development for this property. And what you see highlighted are areas of existing buildings that are governed by this development plan. This is the only proposed new structure that will be built under this development plan for this particular development. You can see that there are associated parking areas as well. This one was recently constructed, as a matter of fact. There is parking along the street as well. This will be a new parking lot. There is parking spaced in different areas through here throughout this proposed development. It is, as you can see, existing for the most part and is also understanding that it is close to 90% occupied. This development plan, as submitted, was reviewed and subject to the conditions you can see on your agenda. Subsequently, after several meetings, the staff has met with the applicant on two occasions to go over the conditions that you see on your agenda. This has resulted in a revised set of conditions that you see before you. The crux of the discussion and the issues that staff discussed with the applicant are relevant to your original conditions of 13, 14, and 18. 13 was the addition of a parking detail, this particular parking detail that came about through your traffic engineer's sign-off on this particular plan. When this plan was submitted, there was no detail. So it was a very simple thing. We said, please add your detail to the plan. Subsequently, in conversations with the traffic engineer and the applicant, and the traffic engineer has also visited the site, it was determined that that detail was no longer necessary to the proposed function of this intersection. Now, that leads us to the discussion of the appropriate street improvements. This plan, as submitted for certification, showed a bump out in this area along with this crosswalk. It was this detail that created the need for the missing detail, or this detail. But since this is not going to be constricted, this will not be built. By not constricting this intersection, this particular detail is not necessary. Now, if for any reason in the future, there should be a need to make these sorts of improvements that's well within the right of way, and it's not unusual at all for a traffic engineer to go out and stripe turn lanes. That's a very common occurrence where needed. And that can be evaluated in the future as this property evolves. Now, as we met and discussed the appropriate street improvements and those items referenced on your conditions, it came down to seven issues. These seven issues we have here on a map. We also handed out to you this. This is just a little breakdown of where the applicant and the staff are in discussing the resolution and timing of these particular improvements. We've had very, very productive discussions with them, and we've made a tremendous amount of progress, in fact. Back to number one, the crosswalk in this area, they've agreed to do that. And again, this is just for pedestrian safety. There are some physical issues that are a challenge right here due to the condition of the street and the shoulder, and there's some things that they're very much aware of, and they'll have to work with traffic engineering to get that done appropriately in this area. And that is one and two, again, the crosswalk and this crosswalk here at the railroad. The third issue through here was an issue of whether or not, again, on the original plan, we had trees, we had bump outs, we had a lot of things proposed along this area. And we arrived at a conclusion that maybe painted bump outs would work. We kicked a lot of things around, frankly, in our meetings with them to talk about how we would calm traffic and how this would best work. We reached an agreement that delineation of parking spaces would serve the same function as just putting painted bump outs on the street. And so the applicant has agreed to literally paint the existing spaces so that they're visible and people will know where to park and where the legal parking is on the street. And we would agree that that will help accomplish the intent in this area. Four on your list is back here at Given, where National makes this hard 90-degree turn and turn here, and they have agreed to place the crosswalks at this location. Again, pedestrian safety being the key. And I might add at this point, all this is consistent with their vision, and staff agrees with this vision, that this area is going to evolve and become more than what it is now and going to encourage more pedestrians and a different type of use and restaurant uses, retail uses, and those types of things that we all envision our adaptive reuse accomplishing. We now arrive at the issues where we have not fully agreed. That's five and six. That's the bump outs here and the bump outs here and the street tree in this area. Staff believes that these are necessary to the appropriate pedestrian safety and traffic calming for the future, for the development of this area as an adaptive reuse project. And we are recommending, and you can see that on your new conditions that we've handed out, that these items that you see in green be completed at the time of the construction of the new building. The applicant has agreed to the street trees along through here, which was a part of our original concern about the development. And again, we see this is North Ashland Avenue. It's going to be, we believe, important to come into this area as it changes. We believe this will not only encourage pedestrian safety, it will discourage truck traffic from going on to North Ashland. Predominantly residential, we want to discourage that. And we're very much aware, and the applicant has explained that there's still a lot of truck traffic in the area. There's going to be truck traffic generated back in this area, which is outside of their project and their control. Again, as it evolves, as it becomes more of an adaptive reuse, we would like to encourage any truck traffic to go right on out here to Walton and then to Winchester or wherever they need to go. So again, we believe that's a very important item to be done in conjunction with the construction of this building. I would say again that with your new handouts, with the 18 conditions, I will briefly touch on one, which is 17, resolve the dumpster location. That has actually, on this plan, as you see it, were located here and here. They've agreed to remove those. They don't work well, and they're aware of that. And they'll be working with our solid waste folks to achieve a much better location for those. So that has been addressed. Again, based on your new or revised conditions, staff does recommend approval of this plan. Mr. Martin, are you deleting number 13? You've got a line all the way through it. Yes, ma'am. You can delete 13. That is that turn detail that I explained there at Walton. That can be deleted. That would leave us with 17 conditions. It would, pardon me. Yes, ma'am. It would be 17 conditions. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? With respect to the new sidewalk construction, excuse me, the new crossing that you're requesting at the 90 degree turn on National Avenue, that's the intersection with Given. I know that there is sidewalk available on the, I guess it would be the southern portions of Given in the residential area. Is there a segment of sidewalk that connects over to the 90 degree angle? I believe the sidewalks are hit and miss somewhat in that area. Some need to be repaired. Some are going to be added. They have done a tremendous amount of work, I might add, on sidewalks and other amenities. There are amenities that are connected to their vision of the overall area that they're going to install as well. Well, I know there are sidewalks on the north side, I guess, of National Avenue, but I just don't know about that hard turn. And we're creating crossings there, but there are no sidewalks to deliver pedestrians to? There should be. There is on this side, on the south side of National. I don't know about the north side of where Given and National make that dogleg, two 90 degree turns. That's what I'm asking. And I don't know of the condition of those. I think the applicant will probably speak to that. We'll ask the petitioner to address that in a few minutes. Are there other questions for Mr. Holmes? Yeah, Tom, could you explain to the painted crosswalk over the railroad crossing? What exactly is that? Do you need approval from the railroad? Well, I believe they will cross. It'll be in the public right-of-way, and then it may very well stop and jump the railroad and continue again. The whole idea is just to create a space where pedestrians can walk, something that's delineated so drivers can see it. Yeah, and they're going to have to work with our traffic folks, because they will be in the right-of-way to do that improvement. Are there other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. I'm sorry, Ms. Copeland, do you have a question? Yes, Mr. Martin, this sheet right here, how does it fit on this sheet? That, this sheet right here, goes directly to 14, addition of appropriate public street improvements, and then 18, which is denote the timing of those public improvements associated with the construction of the new building. Okay, so when we make a motion, we should ask that this be included. Well, this was just exhibit. I was hoping to help explain to you the issues that we had discussed, and where we, those issues that you see that are underlined shows that we've agreed to certain things, but not everything, and that's, that's what created your revised conditions. Are there other questions? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner. Thank you. Thank you. Harvey Johnson, CRP and Associates. I wanted to make some clarification of what you're observing here on the bump outs on the future building, and at the intersection of North Ashland and National Avenue. This is, what you're looking at is the preliminary development plan. After it was surveyed, and the final development plan, which we've submitted, we don't have really the room to do all those bump outs. It would create an unsafe situation, because from curb to curb, we have 32 feet, and if we do parallel parking on one side, that's 8 feet. That gives us 24 feet for two-way traffic. This would only give us, you've got eight on one side, eight on the other, parallel parking would only give us 14 feet for travel way, and that's, well, it just won't work with the regular automobile and traffic, truck trafficking that's out there now. So I think what we're concerned with is, I know Tom was saying it's a traffic calming, but it'll be more of a traffic congestion or just an impossibility for cars to even maneuver in just to negotiate other traffic. What we're proposing is we're looking at striping the off-street parking and maybe some of the islands there for a striped ability to accommodate the existing traffic flow. So it's still safe, but yet delineated on what we're trying to make the attempt to do. I guess that's any other questions? I have Randy and Greg Walker, Walker Properties here also. So I guess what we're asking is to not have to delineate the hardscape on the final, since this is only preliminary and this was before it was actually surveyed. National Avenue actually does vary in right-of-way and with a road. So we're going to try to accommodate as much as possible out there. They want to do something nice, but it's got to be safe too. So we want to, you know, we're in agreement with that to do the striping and any kind of a bump out area that we can stripe to delineate that visually. But physically, I just won't. It's impossible to, you'd be creating a safety hazard at that point. Are there questions for the petitioner, Ms. Copeland? You're talking about the bump out between 720, the number 725 and 737? Well, actually, yes, 725, 737 and where the public space is indicated right at the intersection there at North Ashland and National, those bump outs. It's hard enough for a truck to make that turning radius from National onto North Ashland. That and in trailers, we've got quite a lot of trailers that go through there too. So you're talking about anything green on National Avenue? All the green things? Yes, right. Because again, you're looking at a preliminary, which we didn't have through dimensioning. And after survey, we found out that it's a lot smaller than what we thought it was going to be. Are there additional questions? Petitioner? Yes, Ms. Phillips? Could you answer the question with respect to the sidewalk on Given? Yes. Excuse me. Would you take the microphone, please? So, thank you. What portion were we looking at now? Right here? Where it intersects closer up. Oh, at the Given? Okay. We have sidewalk all along here that's existing. Well, actually, this has been redone recently and we do have sidewalk that ends to this point. I know that what has been modified to be a parking lot had been just a lay down site and I knew that there was no sidewalking there. So, my concern was creating this street crossing and allowing people to, you know, be dumped out into an area that didn't have a sidewalk. So, that's good to hear. No, it's, it's, and then there's an existing sidewalk that continues on. Are there other questions? Mr. Brewer? No, that's for staff. Okay. There are no other questions for the petitioner than staff. I believe we have some questions. Mr. Martin, on the number, what's now number 13, addition of appropriate public streets, maybe this is Rochelle also, can he have the latitude to do what he was describing or not do what he doesn't want to do under the terms of appropriate public street improvements? He would for those areas not included under 18, which is the item of discussion in green. Okay, so, so he would still have to do that even though he's saying it's going to be a safety hazard? Well, I would, I would add that we've yet to fully verify that. This is not the staff's preliminary development plan. This is the applicant's preliminary development plan. And what we ask is that they add to their final development plan, those commitments as shown on the preliminary to address traffic calm. Now, if, if they need to make some changes to the traffic plan, they can they need to make some design revisions, then I would certainly want to vet that with traffic engineering and our pedestrian planner and, and those bodies people as well to see what might be appropriate if there are more appropriate designs. Okay, thanks. Are there other questions, Mr. Owens? Tom, as a follow up. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a follow up, with the intersection of Ashland and National, I think the applicant's saying that what you're asking would constrict the area too much to allow traffic. Are you saying traffic is in approval of what's been recommended here or they haven't had a chance to evaluate it yet? Traffic engineering has not communicated to planning that they have a problem with these particular improvements. They did communicate that they supported the removal of that detail. Okay. And, and again, as a, as clarification or emphasis, you know, this is an area that is proposed to evolve in use and that we have tied these improvements to that evolution, the construction of the new building. And we believe it's, it's important that we address those types of issues like traffic calming and pedestrian safety. And, and yes, there may be, traffic calming may create a little bit of congestion. I think that's why it calms the traffic. Okay, thank you. Are there other questions, Ms. Phillips? Well, just to speak to Mr. Brewer's comment, I'm familiar with the area, obviously, and has the chain link fence been taken down off the corner of seasonings catering? Yeah. Took it down about a year ago. Okay. I haven't been back there in that long. So, because I know that that would really constrict an opportunity for turning, but I know the area. I know that it is tight and I wouldn't have any problems with, you know, visual markers, painting, as opposed to true bump outs and, and hard infrastructure personally. Are there other questions, Ms. Copeland? No, I think it's great what you're doing down there. It's a great aesthetic improvement. It's exciting. I'm just surprised that there's no gateway. If, if National Avenue is the preferred entrance, then why isn't there a gateway down at the liquor store corner, railroad corner, Walton Avenue corner? You know, something that would say gateway. That's because we're waiting on the adaptive reuse to be approved. Once we get that, then we'd like to start work on gateway entrances and benches and bike racks, all the things that, you know, spelled out in the criteria of the adaptive reuse. Are there other questions? Ms. Phillips, did you have one? I'd love what you guys are doing down there and I'm really excited for it to come to fruition. If there are no other questions, is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? Thank you very much. I'll close this discussion then. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, we have another question. Well, I'm not sure about a question for the applicant, but, you know, it seems like National Avenue, Ashton Avenue intersection there is definitely a concern. And Tom Martin said that, you know, traffic had not expressed any concerns with, with the current plan the way it is. Can they elaborate any farther as far as from traffic on this? Yeah, the problem we have is we have only a section of this downtown. There's, I want businesses down the street that have now tractor trailer traffic and will continue to have tractor trailer traffic. If we take that intersection right there and cut them down to 18 feet to pass two tractor trailers, it's not going to happen. You can't do it, especially when you put parking on both sides of the street. It's just not physically feasible to pass two large trucks and 18 feet doing more than two miles an hour. You just, it just can't do it. So if we put that bump out, all we're going to do is create. bump out, all we're going to do is create a speed bump because they're going to drive over it. And there's no need to do that. What we need to do is do something there. And we've got a garden going in on the corner, our garden. And there's going to be some nice visual there. And we agree that we need, we could do something in front of the new building to make that more pleasurable to the eye to make that intersection. But what we don't want to do is we don't want to create everyone up and down the street mad at us because we tried to plant a tree out in the middle of the road. You just can't physically do it. If you come there and watch the traffic flow, you would understand what I'm talking about. We're down there every day three or four times a day. And what we don't want to do is we don't want to create more of a monster than is already there. That's why we go to extremes to tear down buildings to have places to park off street for our tenants. And some of it you can't control. So there is some street parking. As long as there's street parking and there's tractor-trailers coming down there, you're going to have the issue of misclearances. That's what we're concerned about. You've already got that challenge associated with the 290-degree turns. Oh, it's absolutely. People getting back. Yeah, we landscape it, we sod it, we put in trees, and the tractor-trailers drive over. It's not necessarily their fault. It's just a hard place to make the turns. And we don't want to create another situation like that at the corner of Nashville and Ashland. Let's do some things there, but we don't need to get out in the street to do it. I'd also like to add that I understand the intent of what Tom and Jimmy were talking about as far as the evolution of the area and creating these bump-outs to slow traffic. I understand that intent, but they're tying it to the wrong thing. If they're tying the evolution of the area to 737 National Avenue being built, who's to say we won't start that tomorrow? And then we have to create these bump-outs that are immediately, day one, going to be a problem. And I'd also like to argue that retail and restaurants, if we do get them down there, they still receive truck traffic all the same, sometimes even more so, you know, with box trucks and things like that. So that's where we're coming from. We understand the intent, and I think it's a great idea in a lot of circumstances. We just don't have the street to do it. I also want to, again, discuss that this is a preliminary conceptual plan that you're looking at now that was pulled off of GIS, LFUCG GIS, and I had a hell of a time putting it together, and I was still off on trying to make this thing work on the preliminary conceptual stage. But once it's surveyed, I mean, that looks like that would work, but after we surveyed it and it was real, it just, it's an impossibility, physical impossibility to do so. The concerns about traffic calming, I have talked with traffic engineering. We went into a long discussion of what the options, what the possibilities would be on North Ashland, and we finally concluded that previously there was a sign put at the intersection, the next intersection before you enter into North Ashland area that was congested area, 15 miles per hour. And it was the conclusion after all that discussion that we could do another duplicate sign going from National on to North Ashland, placing that sign along North Ashland here to, for pedestrians to be aware that this is a congested area and that the speed limit would be set. Do you, does the petitioner have any other comments or? I don't think we have any more comments. Did we hear from traffic engineering? Thank you. Jeff Neal from traffic engineering. I haven't had a lot of time to look at this. We've had some long conversations with Harvey about traffic calming, especially on Ashland Avenue. And it was, I guess after yesterday is my impression that we were talking about painting and things like that on National Avenue and basically not much green, additional green space at all. So I'm not sure exactly what the plan is right at the moment, and I guess that's part of the question. And I guess everything was supposed to be tied to the building at 737, and the applicant makes a good point about what happens on down National Avenue if we still have semis running through there. We probably don't want to shrink the street any more than it already is. So if there's any more questions. Does anyone have any questions for Jeff? Jeff, as far as National Avenue, North Ashland Avenue intersection, was that concept, when you were looking at it, figuring it, getting the dimensions on it, to you, was that going to allow normal traffic to go through there? I'm just trying to figure out how it came about if you can't get normal traffic through there now anyway. A lot of times, especially on the preliminary plans, we give the applicant a lot of flexibility on showing what they want to do. As far as getting the zoning and things like that, we're not looking at it that close on individual intersections. Now that we're back to the final development stage, I guess if one semi is going straight through there, no problem. If one's trying to turn, they're going to run up on the curbs. And so I think probably until the area changes from industrial to more retail oriented businesses, it should probably be, probably leave the intersections as open as possible, or as open as they need to be. That's something we can look at in the future, is put templates on there, see where the trucks are actually, sometimes you can go out there and look at where the tires are actually hitting on intersections and see where the curb lines should be. And so that's just an easy way of doing it. Are there additional questions for Jeff? Thank you very much. Are there other questions for Petitioner or for staff from the Commission? Mr. Craven. So, how do we resolve this with number eight? I mean, this is preliminary development plan, right? No, sir. And that's something that I think probably bears. This is not preliminary? What you see before you is a final development plan. And it was the differences from the preliminary that raised these issues. Are there certain, for them to use adaptive reuse, are there certain concessions that they got to do this? For adaptive reuse, are there certain privileges they have by doing that? Yes, sir. They are allowed many more flexible uses of their property and a considerable reduction in the parking requirement. Those are the benefits of an adaptive reuse. There are criteria as well that we ask them to meet. And that's one of the issues here. The criteria, of course, is tied to the overall development or redevelopment of the area. And I would add, I think this, about being preliminary and conceptual, and that requirement, our preliminary development plans were developed, quite frankly, when you see large green space developments and open developments and large redevelopments where you're seeing a lot of new construction. This is a largely built area. And I think the need for very specific information is more important in this case. Because, again, the decisions and the review decisions were based on the assumption that this is a built area and this is pretty set information. With all, I guess, due respect to conceptual plans, I would be concerned that it would be that in adaptive reuse in an area like this, that it wouldn't be a little more fixed when you had it presented to you. Well, I think we talked about that in subdivision, that the preliminary is what sold us on adaptive reuse. And then when the final came in, it was completely, I mean, all those trees and all the green space had been taken out. But I understand their reason for it. I mean, you've got to be able to get trucks up and down through there. And that's understandable. Again, staff would, by the same token, we want to discourage those trucks on Ashland Avenue. We'd like to see them stay on National and go on it. I know that there are some uses on Ashland Avenue that are going to have to take advantage of making a turn there. Because they can't come in on Aurora, which is the closer street in. They can't come in Aurora. And there's a cabinet maker that's located near the intersection of Aurora and Ashland. And, you know, they're going to have to bring trucks through there. And personally, I think that we could probably leave it to the developer and traffic engineering to resolve something prior to recording the plat. There will be no recording of a plat, though. It's a development plan. Mr. Holmes. Yeah, I was going to agree with that. Based on what I'm hearing from traffic engineering, I tend to agree with the developer and the difficulty of the road. And I think you're going to get that in adaptive reuse where you need flexibility and where you still have some very intense use and you're trying to get down to some less intensive retail and some of the residential that's there. And the difficulties you're going to have, I think, in adaptive reuse in neighborhoods like this is the conflict of some of the land uses. But given what I've heard from the traffic engineering and what the developers are saying, I think they need to work it out. It's not like they're close to working it out. I'm tending to agree that we probably shouldn't go with the restriction of the street with the bump outs. But I'd like to see them and traffic engineering work that out. Then I would think that's more along the lines of an appropriate traffic calming would be, if I may phrase that for you. Are there other commissioners who have questions? If not, we'll close the discussion. Did you have anything else you wanted to add? I don't think we have any. So do we need to get a legal opinion on insertion of appropriate before traffic calming in 17? Or is that sufficient to allow the developer to have latitude working with traffic engineering to do what needs to be done? I think we should ask legal that. I was just discussing with Chris whether I think you have the option of either eliminating those based on the testimony that you've heard today, or you could possibly, since all of these improvements are tied to the construction of the new building, even though nothing is going to be recorded to trigger resolution, I think you could say that those improvements need to be resolved to the satisfaction of traffic engineering prior to issuance of a building permit. If traffic engineering gets out there and measures and studies and determines that these are not appropriate and won't work, they would have the ability to approve and sign off on any alterations in this. Thank you. Does that answer your question, Mr. Brewer? I'm not a lawyer. The chair will entertain a motion if there are no other questions. Madam Chair, I'd like to move approval of DP2010-44 Morningside Market with 17 conditions, removing condition number 13. Entirely. And under condition 18, denote the timing as written, scratching to include traffic calming at the intersection of National Avenue and North Ashland to say, to resolve, give me some words, people. Can you say that a little more loudly? Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Is there a second? I will not attempt to repeat that. So I will simply call for a vote electronically, please. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Madam Chair and members of the commission, if you would turn to page 6. The next item on your agenda is item G, DP2010-8, Providence Place, Track 3. Lots 4 and 5. We are headed from downtown, out Newtown Pike. This is a plan that's been brought back to you. It is, again, on the out Newtown Pike across I-75. Here's Newtown Pike. Down in here is our commercial area and what you've seen is a motel recently built down here, a cracker barrel, and all those items and businesses in this area. The plan that you see before you today has been brought back to you with a revision. This plan currently is proposing as a final development plan the development of this lot only. You previously saw this plan and it included this lot right here. By removing lot 4 from this plan, lot 3 and 4 are on a preliminary development plan and they are still governed by that preliminary development plan. These properties will not develop until the Planning Commission approves a final development plan for these properties. You may see them together, you may see them singular. They will be brought to us and to you. This revised plan is not terribly different. It's a little over 100,000 square feet industrial warehouse facility. This is the parking area. The big change by removing this property is there is no connection. So there's no longer an access out to Mary Faye Place. They brought an original plan to us and they had the access easement here along this boundary line. You may recall that from the previous plan. And this access easement not only serves this property, but it goes back and it will serve the proposed pump station that is part of the EAMP plan that will take place somewhere in the rears of these properties. That exact location is not yet determined as staff's understanding. They have brought in a revision. They moved this access point here directly across from Hackney Place. We believe that as the sole access point to serve this property now, again, this is much safer and a much better location for that access point. The conditions that you see before you have been revised and there's a significant revision, but that is directly because of Block 4 being removed from this development plan. Now that there is a boundary requirement, I'll step back over here and outline that again. You may recall at the last meeting where this entire plan was approved, there was considerable discussion with the adjoining property owner about the appropriate boundary and the fence. They've incorporated that information. They've been working with that property owner into this location. I'm sure this body will have that discussion again someday when this is brought before you, but at this point it is our understanding they intend to honor their commitment as was discussed in front of this body on behalf of the adjoining property owner. And that you'll see is the final condition on your agenda. This plan also requires an EAMP compliance report. We handed it out on this brown piece of paper. Again, this is one that's been revised to reflect the single lot that you see before you on this final development plan. The community design element, we believe, has been substantially complied with by the orientation of their building close to the boulevard, by the fact that most, if not all, the majority of the parking is located in the rear. The topography of the site drops a little bit towards that rear corner behind the building, and they are working with the topography to the greatest extent possible. This is consistent with the community design element as well. Although there's no designated greenway and those types of open space items, there's no designated greenway and those types of open space items, or in this area of our community, you may recall that there is an overlay scenic setback, and it does not affect this property whatsoever. It comes through here on this property. There are three infrastructure elements for this area in the expansion plan. That is the regional pump station that I mentioned previously. There is a trunk line that will be required to be constructed as well. And then there is, of course, Providence Parkway that is also an infrastructure element. Now, Providence Parkway, as you see on that plan, has been constructed and dedicated. The sewage pump station is in the preliminary design phases. I'm certainly not committing our water quality people to anything, but it's at least four years down the road before they believe that would be completed. And the trunk line as well is a future element. Obviously, we cannot state that this plan is in full compliance with the AMP, but is in substantial compliance. It's out of their control, obviously, when those sewer improvements are done. Those will be public projects. There are exactions that are required. That resolution and payment of exactions as agreed on this plan. And, of course, those exactions go towards those very same sewer improvements. So the staff has found that this plan is in substantial compliance with the AMP. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Hearing none, thank you very much, Mr. Martin. Petitioner? Members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. I'm sure you're aware that for the expansion area, we're required to post a notification sign as well as present an affidavit. So I have those here. Having reviewed, I believe it's 12 conditions, we're in agreement. I guess at this time, if you have any questions. Mr. Carter? If not, thank you very much. Are there questions or comments from the audience? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? I jumped into that discussion item with the access point. So one of your conditions, which does state discuss that proposed access, they have resolved that access to staff satisfaction. So that discussion item has been addressed by the new plan. The original number 12? It's now number 10 on your revised conditions, yes ma'am. Thank you. Is that correct? If there are no other questions, I'll close the discussion, open it up for either further discussion from the commission, or the chair will entertain a motion. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to move approval of DP 2010-8 with the 11 conditions, removing the one where it says discuss, either number 10 or it was number 12, I don't know what it is now. Removing the discuss part. I think we also have to include acknowledgement or acceptance of the compliance report. Is there a second? Motion is made in second. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The next item on your agenda appears on the top of page 7, item H, DP 2010-51, the 12th amendment to the final development plan for the Lexington Mall property. This property is located on Richmond Road with addresses of 2299, 2349, and 2401. We have received one letter regarding this development plan. I'd like to circulate it to the commission at this time. It's from the Fayette Alliance. I'd like to first orient you to the development plan that's been submitted and then show you a few aerial photos of this particular area. With the development plan, of course, the Lexington Mall property is located very near the interchange of Richmond Road with New Circle Road. It's on the northwest quadrant of that interchange, as it has been for a number of years. This property is immediately abutted by the Freedom Dodge dealership just to the north by Idyll Hour Park, which has been at this location for decades, to the west by the Idyll Hour subdivision. And there are two other properties that are not technically part of the Lexington Mall development plan. They're outlots, if you will, to the former mall. One is the central bank branch location on Richmond Road, and the other is the former BP oil gas station near one of the two signalized intersections to the mall from Richmond Road, this location where the former gas station used to be. And then also at this location, this is a full intersection opposite of the entrance to the Kentucky American Water property and also to the nearby Applebee's restaurant across Richmond Road on that corner. I would like to dim the lights and show you a recent photograph of the subject property, again to help orient the development plans before you. This is looking from the east to the west, and at the bottom of the photo is New Circle Road, and it's off-ramp here heading toward Richmond Road. The reservoir, if you will, is split by Richmond Road at this location, and a small portion of that lake is actually on the subject property. This is Woodhill Drive. That is a signalized intersection with New Circle Road. Here's the auto dealership I mentioned, Idyll Hour Park, and of course the subdivision immediately located here. The mall situated here, there is no occupancy, of course, of that large building, although all of the outlots are occupied with the exception of the former gas station. Also, Home Depot built a store on this property in the 1990s. That is located here. This is actually part of the development plan that's before you this afternoon. This is looking at the same, pardon me, this is looking from the south, not the east. Again, the mall building, this is the bank and the Applebee's restaurant. This is the full intersection I described a moment ago, one of the two signalized intersections, and the park immediately to the rear. The development plan proposes to keep the former two-story Dillard's building and to demolish most of the one-story portion of the mall at this location. You can see there's existing parking here, and also associated with the Home Depot lot as well. The development plan proposes to keep about half of the square footage on the mall, including the Perkins restaurant, the gas station, Applebee's, Central Bank, and the Home Depot, in addition to the unoccupied two-story former Dillard's store. The buildings that are crosshatched on the development plan are proposed for change with this amendment. The purpose of this amendment really is to increase the height of a portion of the one-story portion of the mall, to propose a redesign of the former car wash near the Woodhill Drive and New Circle Road intersection into a new 2,750 square foot building, and also to propose one additional outlot near the signalized intersection near Applebee's and the entrance to the Water Company property. The existing mall building occupies a much larger area than the new one-story use. The use proposed for the Dillard's building and this taller one-story structure with an upper balcony is for a church. That, of course, is a permitted use in the B6P zone, the planned shopping center zoning of the entire mall property, with one small exception. This portion of the property is zoned R4, as it has been for decades. Our dealership has B3 zoning just to the north. The proposed area for the church is to be approximately 45,000 square feet in size. The existing Dillard's building is about 145,000 square feet in two stories. That is to be retained, and the remainder of the buildings on this development plan are about 120,000 square feet and are unaffected by this proposed amendment. This plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee last week, and since that time we have received a revised submission on Tuesday of this week, and that is the rendering that you are looking at here. There are some slight revisions to the development plan that were not seen by the subdivision committee. One of them, as of the D firm maps that were approved a couple of years ago, is in a floodplain, along with some of the entrance to the mall here and the area in front of the bank and the Applebee's restaurant here. There's also the associated 25-foot building line setback from that portion of the floodplain. They are proposing to reorient the floodplain. There is some paperwork to FEMA with the engineering studies to document the floodplain there, and there is a note on this plan that that will be done prior to any construction on that portion of the property. This plan is also rendered in a way where in green you can see additional non-impervious surface area that is proposed from the existing parking lot. There are a number of interior islands where the existing mall building is located, as shown in the yellow cross-hatched area, a number of landscaped islands in the parking lots with additional trees and interior landscape planting, and to the rear along a drive aisle that really separates, if you will, the park use from the historical mall use of the property. On the west side of the former Dillard's, it is also proposed to be added for green space and a sizable area in front of what would be the new church sanctuary connecting to the water feature along Richmond Road to that new proposed building. As I mentioned, this is a revised plan. We checked it against the conditions that were recommended for this plan by your subdivision committee, and the first seven conditions are what I would call ordinary sign-off type of conditions from urban county government agencies such as engineering, traffic engineering, building inspection, solid waste, environmental quality, and the addressing office. The applicant, we believe, has been working to communicate with those agencies and secure their sign-offs for this plan. Through condition number 12, those are what the staff would often term ordinary cleanup types of conditions, items that need to be on the development plan that were not on the original submissions. However, the submission as of Tuesday did incorporate the written scale under condition number 8, did correct the plan title under condition 9, did add information about the proposed width of many new sidewalks. Those are rendered on this plan in kind of the lavender color. Failed to mention that earlier in my remarks. Everything in lavender would be new sidewalk construction that's anticipated by this plan, including trail or a walkway of sorts between the park and the driveway. It's currently in place really from the Woodhill Drive intersection to the Coburn Boulevard intersection, if I can find it right there. It will have a pedestrian system on this development plan. As I mentioned, the floodplain information is on the plan, as is under condition number 13 from your committee, information about the timing of the removal of the drainage easement associated with the reservoir on this portion of the property. The technical committee is one that the applicant has to have this discussion about regarding the technical committee. The technical committee did not review this plan formally because it was a late filed plan. However, the staff did take this plan to the technical committee as a staff item. The reason being we wanted the utility companies and the other representatives that ordinarily review these plans to give them an opportunity to review this as well, and in addition the applicant had already told the staff that they were going to ask that it not go back to the technical committee later this month for review. So we did want to provide them with the information. There was a brief discussion at the technical committee about this proposal and the staff is comfortable with that coming off because of kind of the unusual circumstances that we were able to get this plan in front of the technical committee. There is no approval as has been recommended by your subdivision committee for this development plan. As I've mentioned, we believe conditions number 8 through 14 can be removed, but at this point I would be glad to answer any questions from the commission either about our review of this plan or the proposal that's before you this afternoon. Thank you. Mr. Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the commission. I'm Darby Turner representing Southland Christian Church, the applicant in this matter, and with me today is Greg Avery from Southland, Sarah Tuttle and Mike Woolham from Strand Engineers, and we also have Mike Scanlon, Bruce Simpson, and Bill Hilliard from Thomas & King, which I'll explain in a minute and tell you what we're doing there. We really appreciate the staff's effort to accommodate a very aggressive contract schedule on this property and also appreciate the planning commission's indulgence in time as well in letting us present as an information piece at your last meeting and the technical committee. We have also touched base, as Bill indicated, with the sign-off agency within the urban county government related to the plan to try to essentially get our comfort level in good shape and to do our due diligence and make this thing happen. We are in accord with the staff's recommendation. We have one thing I wanted to, one slight minor amendment to the plan. I call it minor, but it is a very important one with regard to Applebee's. We met with Mr. Scanlon and Bruce and Bill this morning. If you'll notice down here on the development plan, we have a solid curb line here with planters all the way through to this point. The purpose of that is to really try to divert the traffic around and not have a straight access into the church area where you can get into quite a bit of congestion here. One of the concerns that was had by the restaurant was they use this portion as their parking and as a shared parking. So we wanted to eliminate this solid curb here. If you'll note on the board we have pulled, or on the screen, we have pulled this back to this first bay. We dropped one bay out of that screen. That is to meet our needs and Applebee's needs as well. We would want that to be a part of the, if you're so inclined, to have that be part of the approval to recognize that as a slight amendment to the plan. Bill also mentioned the technical committee waiver. That would help us immensely as well. I believe as Bill indicated, the staff has no objection to that and actually recommends that in the removal of 8 through 14. I would be happy to answer any questions. If any of us can answer any questions, we would be glad to. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from commission? Mr. Holmes. You're saying Applebee's will still be able to use the parking? We agree with them entirely. We want them to be very vibrant and exciting and the church wants to be very vibrant and exciting at that site as well. Whatever we can do to help, we're happy to do. Mr. Turner, what happens in 2375, the proposed new building? Actually, we don't know yet. That is an outlot we could create and we wanted to create it with the pond, unless you know that. It will obviously be a use that is compatible with church activity and not incompatible, but we have no user for it at the current time. In other words, you're going to rent that building? They may be a lessor. We may later come in to have it as a subdivided outlot and sell it. With restrictions. The curb situation hits that building also. Part of the pedestrian access system that we're working on with the city folks, we intend to address that. We've shown in concept the trail system. We are still working on how this is going to go through this area. There's very little room up here on the road. We're still working through this whole area right in here, which is a part of this lot. With the best way to provide the pedestrian access in through here. Let's just say it was a restaurant. This is a sidewalk. This is a stream, so this is not the current driveway that you're used to seeing. This is all pedestrian all the way down through here, including to that lot. You can park here and access this lot nearly from this area. And what's going to happen in the upper corner? Again, we're not sure. Actually, on the current development plan, because that is a car wash, with open walls, it's not shown as a structure. So all we've tried to do there is capture that space to recognize that as a buildable area there. There is currently a car wash structure there. Really, we have three plans here in one. We're reworking the old Lexington Mall, and then we have two piggyback places that are new that we're also going to be approving, right? That's correct. This does not, but it will be dependent on making sure we can build it. Right now, it's in the floodplain. But with the reconfiguration of this, the floodplain will be reconfigured and will require FEMA approval of that. And right now, there are approved permits for a reconfiguration of this pond in a different form. So we will be able to go in and amend those permit applications and reconfigure this. And at that point, we will have some buildable area there that we obviously can't, as Bill indicated, we cannot seek a permit until we can accomplish that. Are there other questions for the petitioner? Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? Mr. Simpson. I would like to make a recommendation to, I think they've submitted an amended plan. The only difference from the plan they submitted Tuesday and the one today is the configuration that's on the screen relative to the parking situation affecting Applebee's. We're pleased with the amendment and certainly welcome to the neighborhood, but we do need this amendment as part of your approval today. Thank you. Are there any questions? Are there other members of the audience who would like to comment? Staff have any other comments? Mr. Owens. I think I've just shown staff and everyone to your knowledge would be agreeable with that. I don't think the planning staff has any issue with this configuration. I think under condition number two, that will ensure that the Division of Traffic Engineering will have ample time to look this over before we certify this plan. Okay. Thank you. If not, I will close the discussion and I will entertain a vote. We are deleting eight through 14, is that correct? Mr. Owens. If there's no other questions, I'm willing to make a motion. I've always said and a couple of members of the commission here know that I'm kind of having an aversion to late plans and deleting anything that says review by technical committee prior to certification. However, it really seems like the applicant has jumped through the hoops and worked diligently at doing this, something of this size. Beginning with only 14 requirements, now down to seven, I think is a testament to that. So I'll continue on with motion as far as I'll move for approval of DP 2010-51 Lexington Mall property amended number 12 with the now seven conditions. Is there a second? Motion has been made and second. With the amended plan, yes, sir. I think they said that it would be included in number two, in condition number two, is that correct, staff? We don't need that separate? For the commission to recognize that a revised plan has now been put before you. So you've added that? Did I hear a second? All in favor, please vote electronically. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is plan number 2005-165. This property is located off of, looking at here, this is Clover Lane. We have Polo Club Boulevard. If you head this way, we'll take you up to Man O' War, where I-75 intersection is. Follow Polo Club towards Todd's Road. Today we're looking at Unit 1B. They brought the plan back in. And recorded the ones without the cross-hatching. They're coming back in to ask for reapproval or extension for the additional lots with the cross-hatching, because they haven't recorded those at this time. They have a list of seven conditions for the plan, typical conditions of sign-offs and the approval of the exaction information. Are there questions from the commission? Thank you. Petitioner? Rory Kaley, EA Partners. I'm in agreement and request approval. Plan 2005-166F, property unit 1B, section 2. Is there any discussion? Madam Chair, I move for approval of plan 2006-166. I believe it was introduced as 165, but it's 166 for approval. Is there a second? Motion made in second. All in favor, please vote electronically. All in favor, please vote electronically. All in favor? Yes. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Mr. Brewer, second. Motion has been made in second. All in favor, please vote electronically. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. If we want to stay on the addendum, we're going to move down to this one, 2007-156F, Clark property unit 1M. Again, we are located adjacent to the property we just reapproved. These lots are located facing towards Polo Club Boulevard, still in the Clark property. Once again, they're asking for a year's extension on this plan. They have eight conditions with the standard conditions for sign-offs and for verification with the exact information through the division planning. Are there questions? Rory Kaley with EA Partners. I'm in agreement and request approval. Are there any questions for the petitioner? If not, we will close this portion and I will entertain a motion or further discussion. Madam Chairman, I move approval of plan 2007-156F, Clark property unit 1M. I have a motion. Is there a second? Motion has been made in second. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. The next item of business is the performance bonds and letters of credit need to be released. One has that in their packet. Do I hear a motion to that effect? Second. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written on the memorandum from Mr. Chris King, dated September 9, 2010. Do I hear a second? I have a motion and second. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda are commission items. Does any member have anything that they would like to add to the agenda today? I might add that the money magazine this week just announced that Lexington was the third best place in the country to retire, which was a very nice honor. So we came in third behind Durham and New Hampshire, the University of New Hampshire. They were first and second. We were third. Are there any additional staff items? The staff would only remind the commission that you do have a work session next Thursday. I just wanted to let you know we have a pretty good lineup. First, the BCTC is going to make a presentation on their campus plan. A little bit of advanced information for the commission before they file for a public facility review. A presentation on the Secure by Design program by your own Dr. Derek Paulson and members of the Division of Police. We're going to discuss parking lot requirements at bowling alleys. And as the last item, the staff is going to present to you the results of a customer survey of the subdivision development plan process from earlier this year that we did. I don't think there's anyone left in the audience to comment. So in that instance, meeting adjourned.