# Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 14, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1684 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1684?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-10-14 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 5,770 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. 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 met on October 14, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Carolyn Richardson presided over the meeting, which included six agenda items and resulted in nine motions and votes. The Commission approved the minutes from the previous meeting, addressed postponements or withdrawals, and approved items related to land subdivision, performance bonds and letters of credit, and a public facility review for BCTC, Lugares Community and Technical College (PFR 2010-5). The meeting included three public comments from attendees. ## Attendance **Present:** Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, William Wilson, Eunice Beatty, Carla Blanton, and Patrick Brewer. **Absent:** Derek Paulsen. **Late:** Lynn Roche-Phillips, Marie Copeland, William Wilson, and Eunice Beatty. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of August 12, 2010 Meeting Minutes** [timestamp: 0:01:38] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed by voice vote. Voting in favor: Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, William Wilson, and Marie Copeland. **Postponement of DP 2010-46: L.T. Ruth Property (AMD) to November 11, 2010** [timestamp: 0:02:49] Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mike Owens. Passed by voice vote. Voting in favor: Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, William Wilson, Marie Copeland, and Ed Holmes. **Postponement of DP 2010-15: Gess Property, Unit 8 to November 11, 2010** [timestamp: 0:04:31] Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed by voice vote. Voting in favor: Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, William Wilson, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, and Carla Blanton. **Postponement of DP 2010-54: Chancellor Subdivision (The Springs) to October 28, 2010** [timestamp: 0:05:42] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Ed Holmes. Passed by voice vote. Voting in favor: Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, William Wilson, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, Carla Blanton, and Patrick Brewer. **Approval of Consent Agenda Items** [timestamp: 0:11:53] Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mike Cravens. Passed by voice vote with one abstention. Voting in favor: Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, William Wilson, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, and Carla Blanton. **Postponement of PLAN 2010-100F: NDC Property (Wellington), Unit 1-B, Section 2, Lots 19 & 20 (AMD) to November 11, 2010** [timestamp: 0:14:26] Motion by William Wilson, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed by voice vote. Voting in favor: Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, William Wilson, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, Carla Blanton, and Patrick Brewer. **Approval of PLAN 2010-106F: Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 & 2** [timestamp: 0:18:23] Motion by Ed Holmes, seconded by Mike Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 11 conditions including Urban County Engineer acceptance of drainage and sewers, Traffic Engineer approval of street cross-sections, Building Inspection approval of landscaping, and other departmental approvals and requirements. **Approval of Release and Call of Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit** [timestamp: 0:19:33] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed by voice vote. Voting in favor: Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, William Wilson, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, Carla Blanton, and Patrick Brewer. **Approval of Public Facility Review PFR 2010-5: BCTC, Lugares Community and Technical College** [timestamp: 0:41:44] Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed by voice vote with two recommendations: use best management practices to protect water supply from contamination due to proximity to Cane Run Creek and wellhead protection area, and establish a 50-foot buffer around the cemetery with trees, hedge, and wall or fence in compliance with zoning ordinance requirements. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the meeting with concerns regarding campus development and infrastructure. **Stan Harvey** [timestamp: 0:31:57] spoke about funding for renovation of the old laundry building. He noted that the building is deteriorating and requires stabilization. A federal grant has been applied for to support this work. Harvey indicated that if the federal grant is not approved, BCTC will pursue alternative funding partnerships, including tax credits through national landmark status and support from the Bluegrass Trust. **Mr. Olin** [timestamp: 0:34:18] raised questions about transportation access and LexTran coordination. He reported that LexTran has expressed interest in establishing a dedicated bus stop on Newtown Pike and developing a potential north-side transfer station. However, Olin noted that the final decisions regarding these transportation improvements are not within BCTC's control. **Ms. Copeland** [timestamp: 0:37:50] addressed student capacity and building height concerns. She questioned whether an enrollment projection of 12,000 people over 20 years is sufficient for the campus. Copeland also expressed concern about building heights on the campus, noting that while the campus plan includes taller buildings in the interior of the development, the frontage along Newtown Pike is limited to three stories. ## Contested Items **Building Height and Student Capacity** A heated discussion arose regarding the projected student population and building heights for the proposed development. Commissioner Ms. Copeland raised concerns about the long-term enrollment projections, noting that the development was planned to accommodate a student population of 12,000 over a 20-year period. She also expressed concerns about the height of the buildings under consideration, arguing that some structures may exceed residential scale and could be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The core of the disagreement centered on whether the proposed building heights were appropriate for the area and whether the projected student capacity was sustainable and compatible with neighborhood character. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:32 p.m. by Chair Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 00:00]. The agenda was reviewed at the start of the meeting, and the proceedings began with the approval of the previous meeting's minutes. ## Approval of Minutes The minutes from the August 12, 2010, meeting were presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:01:38] Key speakers on this agenda item included Mike Cravens and Patrick Brewer. The minutes were approved by voice vote without opposition. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:02:12] Three development plans were postponed during this agenda item. The Commission deferred consideration of DP 2010-46, DP 2010-15, and DP 2010-54. Each postponement followed the same procedural format: a Commission member made a motion to defer the plan, another member seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. The key speakers involved in these actions were Matt Carter, Rory Kahly, and Mr. Sallee. All three development plans were successfully deferred without opposition. ## Land Subdivision Items The Commission reviewed and approved several items related to land subdivision during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:06:47]. **Items Reviewed** The Commission considered preliminary and final subdivision plans and development plans as part of the Consent Agenda. Staff recommended approval of PLAN 2010-106F, which included 11 conditions for approval. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Chris King, Bill Sallee, Cheryl Gallt, and Rory Kahly. **Outcome** PLAN 2010-106F was approved following discussion among the Commission members. The approval was contingent upon the 11 conditions recommended by staff. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 00:19:00] The Commission considered the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit during this agenda item. Mike Cravens moved to approve the matter, and Patrick Brewer seconded the motion. The Commission approved the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit. ## Public Facility Review: BCTC, Lugares Community and Technical College (PFR 2010-5) [timestamp: 0:20:07] A presentation was made regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Eastern State Hospital property into a campus for Bluegrass Community and Technical College. Key speakers Bill Sallee and Stan Harvey presented the project details to the Commission. The proposed development includes a four-phase implementation plan spanning 20 years. The project emphasizes three primary design principles: * Sustainability * Historic preservation * Community integration The Commission reviewed the public facility proposal and voted to approve it. The approval included two specific recommendations: * A recommendation regarding cemetery buffer requirements * A recommendation concerning water protection measures The project represents a significant adaptive reuse of the Eastern State Hospital property, transforming the historic site into an educational facility while maintaining consideration for the site's existing features and surrounding community context. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the minutes from the August 12, 2010, meeting - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of DP 2010-46: L.T. Ruth Property (AMD) to November 11, 2010 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of DP 2010-15: Gess Property, Unit 8 to November 11, 2010 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of DP 2010-54: Chancellor Subdivision (The Springs) to October 28, 2010 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the Consent Agenda items - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of PLAN 2010-100F: NDC Property (Wellington), Unit 1-B, Section 2, Lots 19 & 20 (AMD) to November 11, 2010 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PLAN 2010-106F: Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 & 2 with 11 conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Public Facility Review PFR 2010-5 for BCTC, Lugares Community and Technical College with two recommendations --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Good night, everyone. We'll call the meeting to order. And the first item on the agenda will be the approving of the minutes of the August 12th through 2010 meeting. We all have them. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? Madam Chairman, move approval of the minutes of August 10th. I have a motion by Mr. Cravens, second by Mr. Brewer. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next item on the agenda, postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any postponements? Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you would turn to page 5 in the agenda, item C, DP 2010-46, LT Ruth property, we request a one-month postponement. Mr. Salley, what would that meeting date be? Madam Chair, your meeting in November for subdivision and development plan items is scheduled for November 11th. That's four weeks from today. There's a postponement being asked for for DP 2010-46 LT Ruth property for one month. Is there any objection from anyone in the audience? Any objection from anyone on the committee, on the commission? If not, do I hear a motion for postponing? I would like to make a motion to postpone DP 2010-46 for one month. We have a motion that has been moved by Mr. Brewer and seconded by Mr. Owens. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Any other postponements? Rory Kaley, Chair, Chairman, Members of the Board, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. On page 4, under Development Plans, Item A, Guest Property Unit 8, request a one-month postponement to November 11th. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the postponement? Anyone on commission? Not. Do I hear a motion that we postpone DP 2010-15 Guest Property Unit 8 for one month to the November 11th meeting? Madam Chair, I'll move. Go ahead. Madam Chair, I'll move for postponement of DP 2010-15 Guest Properties Unit 8 until November 11, 2010. Motion by Mr. Owens. Second by Mr. Brewer. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other postponements or withdrawals? Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the staff does have one item to bring to your attention. On page 6 of your agenda, item E, DP 2010-54, Chancellor Subdivision, The Springs, staff has received a written request from the applicant for a two-week postponement. And that would be for which meeting date? That would be the 28th, Madam Chair. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to object to this postponement? Anyone on the commission who wants to object to this postponement? If not, DP 2010-54, Chancellor's Subdivision, the Springs, has requested a two-week postponement until our October 28th meeting. Is there a motion to that effect? Madam Chairman, move postponement of DP 2010-54 for two weeks until October 28th. Is there a second? Motion made by Mr. Craven. Second by Mr. Holmes. All in favor, please say aye. Nay. Unanimous. Thank you very much. Are there any, was that the only one, Mr. Selle? As far as I know, Madam Chairman, yes. Sorry. Looking at one person and talking to another. Because you're next on the agenda. would you like to present the consent agenda at this time? I'd be honored to, Madam Chair. Thank you. I'm happy to report most of the remaining items on your meeting agenda today do qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda. Your consent agenda has the first plan on your meeting agenda. It is a preliminary subdivision plan recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. It appears on page 1, item A of your meeting agenda. It's Plan 2010-99P, a preliminary subdivision plan for Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 and 2. This is for property located at 2599 Old Rosebud Road. There are a half dozen final record plats, also recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on the top of page 2, item B, Plan 2010-101F, an amended final record plat for Roman Soldier Subdivision, Unit 1E, Lot 28. This is for property located at 3876 Sugar Creek Road. The next four items are all different units of the guest property. The first is page 2, item C, for Plan 2010-102F, Guest Property Unit 6D. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 3, item D, is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2010-103F, Guest Property Unit 6E. Guest Property Unit 6F, which is Plan 2010-104F, is also on your consent agenda. On your meeting agenda, that is page 3, item E. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 3, item F, Guest Property Unit 6G, is also on the consent agenda. That is Plan 2010-105F. All four of these units of the guest property have an address being a portion of 840 Hayes Boulevard. The final subdivision plan on your consent agenda appears on page 4 of your meeting agenda, item H. Plan 2010-61F, the Hillenmeyer Property, Unit 1, Phase 1. This proposed plat is located at 2801 Sandersville Road. There are also seven final development plans that appear on the consent agenda. The first appears on your meeting agenda on page 5, item B, DP 2010-45, the Palumbo Property, Tract A, also known as the Hope Center. This is for property located at 299 Loudoun Avenue. On page 5, item D of your meeting agenda, DP 2010-53, Beaumont Farm Unit 12, Lots 1 and 4 appears on your consent agenda. This is for property located at 3231 and 3251 Beaumont Center Circle. On page 6, item F of your meeting agenda, there is a final development plan for Ollie's Trolley, also known as MDR Centers, LLC. This is DP 2010-55. It's an amended final development plan for property located at 205 Southland Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 7, item G, is on the consent agenda, DP 2010-56, Man of War Development Unit 2, Section 1, Lot 2B. This involves property at 1875 Pleasant Ridge Road. On page 7, item H of your meeting agenda, DP 2010-57, a final development plan for Tuscany Unit 6, Section 1, Lot 1, involving property for being a portion of 2599 Old Rosebud Road. There are two remaining items on your consent agenda. Page 7, Item I, is the first of the two, DP 2010-59, Miriam E. Aiken property, also known as Lexington Home Ownership Commission, Incorporated. This is for property at 163, 165, and 167 Jefferson Street. The final plan on the consent agenda appears on page 8, Item J, of your meeting agenda. This would be for DP 2010-60, Hamburg Place Farm, Phase 2, Lot 17. This is an amended final development plan for property located on Sir Barton Way. Madam Chair, all of these items could be considered for approval at this time on your consent agenda, unless there's a request from a commission member or a member of the audience for their removal so that they can be presented fully today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to pull one of these items from the consent agenda? Is there anyone on the commission who has an item that they would like to pull? If not, I will motion for approval of the consent agenda as it reads. Madam Chair, I'll make for approval of the consent agenda, but I need to note in the record that I'm abstaining from DP-2010 because I'm on the board. Thank you, Ms. Brewer. Second. That was not a motion. Was that a motion? Oh, it was a motion. I thought you were just – sorry. Okay. We have a motion from Mr. Brewer and a second by Mr. Cravens. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Consent agenda is accepted. Thank you. We'll be prepared to present the next item in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you. Get ready for the next one. Mr. Salley. Madam Chair, thank you. Members of the Commission, again, good afternoon. The first item not approved on your consent agenda appears on the top of page 2. It's item 2A, Plan 2010-100F, NDC Property, also known as Wellington, Unit 1B, Section 2, Lots 19 and 20, amended. This is a proposed subdivision plan to divide one lot into two lots. You'll know from the agenda that your subdivision committee has recommended postponement of this plan. This was also the staff's recommendation to the committee. We note that the applicant is not present this afternoon, and the staff would ask that the commission at this time postpone this item to your November 11th meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this? Not do I hear a motion from the Commission that we postpone to the November 11th meeting, Plan 2010-100F, NDC Property, Wellington, Unit 1B, Section 2, Plots 19 and 20. Motions made by Mr. Wilson. Do I hear a second? Second by Mr. Brewer. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. MS. Hello. It's all yours. MS. Good afternoon. Thank you. MS. Thank you. MS. Thank you very much. MS. Hello. It's all yours. MS. Good afternoon. MS. Good afternoon. MS. Good afternoon. MS. Good afternoon. MS. Good afternoon. MS. All yours. Good afternoon. If you all would turn to page three, at the bottom of page three, we have planned 2010-106F, Tuscany Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 and 2. I also believe there has been put on your places. Everybody has a copy in the tan sheets. We have received a plan to revise this plan. This property is located off of Old Rosebud. If you're coming around Sir Barton Way, Old Rosebud leads you towards the property here off of Ogden Way. Okay. They brought in a new plan and they've asked with some of the conditions being met. They also had a waiver that was asked for and this waiver has now been, they've asked to have that withdrawn. So on the tan sheet we have 11 conditions without the request of a waiver for improvements. With that, the staff recommends approval. Does anyone have any questions? If not, additioner? Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with the revised recommendations, 11 conditions, and request approval. Ms. Copeland? I have a question. Number eight, addition of property owner and developer's information. That seems like such an easy thing to do. Why wasn't that corrected? Well, I added the owner's name, and it's essentially the same as developer, but I didn't classify as owner and developer. So it's on the plan? The owner's name is on the revised plan, yes. I just need to add the words to make it be the developer as well. Are there other questions from the commission? I'll thank you. Hear a motion for approval of Plan 2010-106F, Tuscany Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 and 2, with the 11 recommendations from the staff. Madam Chair, I make a motion for approval of Plan 2010-106F, Tuscany Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 and 2, with the 11 conditions. Ms. Second. Second. Ms. Second. Ms. Motion by Mr. Holmes, second by Mr. Cravens. All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam Chair, I believe the next item may appear on page 8 of your agenda, the performance bonds and letters of credit. I believe all the other items have been acted on. Thank you. Everyone has that, the memorandum on the bonds. Is there a motion for the release and call of bonds? Question? Madam Chairman? Mr. Craven? Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Is there a second? Motion by Mr. Craven, second by Mr. Brewer for the release and call of bonds. All in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. At this time, are there items for the Commission that anyone would like to bring before the Commission? If not, then we have a presentation. We may be moving too quickly for folks today. Good afternoon. We haven't done one of these for a while. This is on page 8 of your agenda. It's item A under commission items. It's public facility review for BCTC, Lugares Community and Technical College. It's PFR 2010-5. 5 and the property is located at 627 West 4th Street got up here on the overhead and it is zoned AU it contains about 48 acres you've got residential zoning on this side of the property Poolevin Park and then the north side neighborhood is down in this area and then this is I1 we've got I1 zoning that goes around to the south also and part of that part of that area is a a Transylvania University property, and part of it is commercial. We've got residential and commercial zoning over on this side of Newtown Pike, and then up here we've got AU and I-1. This would be the YMCA property. This is the Hope Center, and then Transylvania has a property over in here. This property is the home to Eastern State Hospital right now, and it will soon be occupied by Bluegrass Community and Technical College. And there are several existing buildings on the property right now. Some will be demolished. Some will be retained and renovated into the new campus. And then some will be total new construction. And the total gross square footage of the entire project will be over a million square feet. It will be 1,132,000 square feet. And it will accommodate about 12,500 people, including students, faculty, and staff when it's done. Bill, if you want to put the phases up. If you notice, the brown buildings on here, the color is not really good, but the brown buildings are ones that are existing, and this will be new construction. He's just going to go through the phases. It's four phases of construction that will take about 20 years to complete. We've got more, and then there's parking up in this area. That'll end up being the primary parking area. A little bit more new construction. and then more new construction. And this building right here and this building right here and this building right here will remain throughout the first three phases. And then at the end, only this building and this building will be there. Those will be renovated and used as part of the college campus. The one that the cross-shaped building is actually the old laundry building, and that's an historic building. and they're asking for federal funds to renovate that building. It will probably be used as either an interpretive center or an arts building, and then the administration building will be renovated for office use. The parking, as I said, most of the parking will be up in this area. There will be a little bit of parking along Newtown Pike in that area there, and a little bit of parking down around Fourth Street. There's a parking area right there. And there will be hopefully four access points once the project is done. And the first three, one will be from Loudon Avenue, one from Newtown Pike, and one from 4th Street. And they're planning to do a fourth access point extending West 5th Street right there into the property. And I don't know if that's known right now as to whether that's a definite, but that's something that's planned in the future. The comprehensive plan recommends other public uses for this property, and that includes prominent facilities that benefit the public and that are service-oriented, and publicly owned hospitals, which is the current use of the property, and public universities are part of that recommendation. There is no known opposition to this. In fact, only support has been voiced for this thing. The goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the text of the comprehensive plan, the central sector small area plan, which had a lot of public input to it as it was being written, and it's now adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. but there was a lot of public input from residents in the area, property owners and stakeholders, and they all had expressed support. And that was adopted, as I said, as part of the comprehensive plan in April of 2009. So it is part, but it was a separate document at the time it was written. There are several goals and objectives that are in support of this, and as you can see there are lots of them in your staff report. They go from the bottom of page two over to the middle of page six. And probably the reason that there are so many more than usual is because it doesn't just affect the subject property. It affects the whole neighborhood. There are a lot of them that are more applicable than others, and we'll go through those a little bit later. But the property, like I said, has been home to the Eastern State Hospital since the late 1800s, and we had a public facility review not too long ago for the Coldstream Research Campus for their new project, project, and they'll be moving out to there in the near future. And the Community Technical College will be moving to this property, and then UK will be taking over their property up by KDT. This is part of the overall future redevelopment of the area. There are about 88 acres in the area that have potential for redevelopment. They're proposing residential and mixed use, possibly an expansion of the YMCA. There will be roadway, bike, and pedestrian improvements as part of this, and the Legacy Trail is supposed to go along the front of the property, along 4th Street. And two of the important aspects of the entire project are the preservation of open space and then improved bike and pedestrian access. As I said, the laundry building is going to stay, and that will be a major focal point of the development. It will be central to the campus. It is central to the property. It's a very old building, but it needs stabilization. And like I said, they're applying for a federal grant for the renovation of the building. And other buildings and the pleasure grounds that were located in this part of the property, Bill, if you want to go ahead and put the campus plan up, that would be fine. The pleasure grounds were located up here. The pleasure grounds on the farm were located up there, and that will be preserved and used as open space on the property. It won't, and that in itself supports goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 5 specifically with four objectives, and then Goal 3, Objective B, Goal 4, Objective G, and Goal 12, Objective I, are all in support of this. And then there's a community garden that's proposed right there on this part of the property. And that is one way of preserving the history of the site because it's not the same scale as what the former farm was, but it is reminiscent of the farm, so that will be a way to preserve the archaeological and the historical aspect of the site. That also helps to fulfill one of BCTC's goals in making the campus a vibrant, interesting place to come to. And they also have other goals regarding development of the property that will be fulfilled and that are in support of the comprehensive plan. Those are on page 7 of your staff report in about the middle of the page. That is to ensure that the campus facilities utilize the best practices with regard to sustainability in order to achieve a minimum LEED Silver rating, support campus community and student retention, strengthen connections between the campus and the community, and support surrounding development, support the ongoing assessment and innovation vital to continuing excellence, create a sense of identity and completeness at every phase of development, and create a safe and healthy work and study environment for students, staff, and faculty. One of the main themes of the Comprehensive Plan is energy efficiency and environmental responsibility, and the text of the Environmental and Green Infrastructure chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses LEED, which is leadership in energy and environmental design and the benefits of environmental responsibility. The buildings and the campus will be LEED Silver certified, and that in itself also is in support of the comprehensive plan. But Silver certification means that they have to attain between 50 and 59 points out of 110 possible points, and that would be for friendly acts during construction or occupancy and use of the buildings. The state has invested over $5 million in design guidelines for open space and architectural standards and construction techniques to ensure the environmental sustainability of the property and the project. There are two issues that we would like them to keep in mind with regard to developing the property. One has to do with the cemetery that is located on the property, which that was, it's located right there, and they're showing a buffer area around it. The cemetery was put in place when Loudon Avenue was built. They had found like 4,500 unmarked graves on the property and moved them all to the cemetery. And they're going to continue to monitor the property as development goes on to see if there are any more, and they will be moved to the cemetery as well. But there is a buffer area around there, and we have just adopted as part of the zoning ordinance the cemetery protection requirements in which the minimum spacing for the buffer is 50 feet in depth, and then it requires trees planted, depending on the size, either every 40 feet on center or every 30 feet on center, plus a six-foot-high hedge around included in the buffer area, plus at least a three-foot wall or fence. So we're hoping that they will include those to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance, even though they're not subject to zoning ordinance requirements. And then the second thing is the property is not actually in the wellhead protection area, but the Cane Run Creek is very, very near this property, and the wellhead protection area is just, like, right up in this area. It's just outside of the wellhead protection area. So we're hoping that they use best management practices, which they probably will since it's going to be LEED certified. But we're recommending that they use best management practices to keep any contamination out of the water supply because it is the water supply for Scott County, parts of Scott County. So this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. I haven't found anything that is in possible conflict with it. And we are recommending approval subject to those two recommendations, that they use best management practices with regard to the water protection and that they put the buffer area around the cemetery in compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to try to answer them. and any other questions about development or anything else can be directed to Mr. Harvey. He's here to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there questions from commission members? You can. Okay, thank you. Mr. Harvey, do you have any comments that you'd like to make? Then we have some questions for you, so don't sit down. Mr. Olin. Mr. Harvey, thanks for coming up. You know, first and foremost, I think, you know, I'm looking forward to seeing this take place. I think it's very needed in a desperate way and it will do a lot of good for the north end, particularly that area in itself. In reading through this, a couple of questions came to mind. I guess the first one, and just going through it, laundry room is going to be renovated. It's talking about a grant, federal-funded grant has been requested. What happens if the grant doesn't come through? Good afternoon. My name is Stan Harvey with Urban Collage. We're a consultant to BCTC. In answer to the question, one of the challenges of the old laundry building is, its current deterioration, so there is a need to quickly stabilize it at least. And we've been working with the state to see if there was funding opportunities and there was this grant program that was identified that they have just recently applied for, and I think they should hear by around the beginning of the year. The commitment that this is a difficult resources allocation issue in that the state legislature, of course, allocated a certain amount of money to the first building. In fact, it was allocated back when it was going to be on Cooper Drive. So everybody's had to work within those parameters, and we're trying to stretch those dollars as far as possible, but it didn't anticipate renovating the Laundrie building or the administration building. So the short answer that I haven't been very short about is that they would continue to look for other partnerships. We have tried to enlist Bluegrass Trust and other historic preservation interests. We also have discussed the consideration of national landmark status for the old laundry building itself to make it eligible for tax credits. That could effectively be one financial strategy. But my short answer is we, at this point, don't have identified funds other than the grant that's been proposed. Also, in reading in regards to Lex Tran and wheels and so forth, it's, you know, and maybe it's just a warning, we'll also likely provide transportation. And then talking about wheels, it reads, it's logical to assume that service would be provided. Have there been any contact with LexTran in regards to this? Yes, we've had two work sessions with LexTran. They, of course, serve the existing campuses. Of course, VCTC also has a significant campus on Leastown Road and on Reynolds Road, I believe it is. The discussions with them, we originally talked about where access points would be. It was our understanding from Lex Tran that they actually preferred to be on the city streets and not have to make loops into the campus because it was so unpredictable, particularly at Leastown. I guess they have a lot of backage where they don't know the headway times once they get on campus because they could get stuck. So the discussion has been to put a dedicated facility or bus stop on Newtown Pike. There already is, of course, bus stops there. And then long term, Lex Tran had expressed interest in possibly having a north side transfer station as part of an increased service opportunity so everybody doesn't have to come to Bynes Street. It's not in BCTC's control, but as 4th Street redevelops, we've suggested that Lex Tran perhaps continue to monitor because we think that redevelopment along 4th Street offers the opportunity to perhaps have a dedicated transfer facility if that's what they're looking for on the north side. So we have had those conversations but are totally in control, of course, of all those decisions. Thanks. I guess one other thing, not to monopolize this, but let me go on and ask, because the best managed practice as far as Royal Springs Wellhead comes into concern, how do you feel about the two recommendations that staff's presenting? We've passed both of the recommendations on to the – there is, as most of you all – or maybe you're not aware, there is a first phase development that we'll be moving towards bidding later this fall. It involves just the first building and then site work and demolition on the site, and it includes improvements, including buffering and fencing for the cemetery. So I have passed on the two recommendations to the architectural and landscape architectural team, and I think that they were in support, and I think that's generally where things were heading anyway. So I can't formally respond for them, but I don't believe BCTC has any opposition to the two recommendations. Thank you, sir. I guess I will just technically to qualify, because the Hope Center shares a boundary with the cemetery. The buffering really isn't possible on one side, technically. Yeah, the other two sides, yeah, just to make clear. Thank you, sir. Yes, Ms. Phillips. I wanted to ask a question about the funding and if there is national landmark status. You had talked, Stan, about tax benefits, but since we're talking about a state entity, there really will be no tax advantage. We met with the Heritage Council to discuss this, and I believe that legally, if, for instance, the BCTC Foundation or some other nonprofit applied, that they would be transferable. Okay, a private corporation. Thank you. Are there other questions, Ms. Copeland? I'm concerned. I love the plan. I think it's great. but I'm concerned that maybe 12,000 people 20 years from now is too small a number. How many people, was this based on the Cooper Drive site, what they needed, or how did they come up with that figure of how many people they were going to educate there? I don't know if I can respond in all the technical detail. I believe that there is approximately 4,700 full-time students at Cooper right now. BCTC does not plan to leave the Leestown campus site. It's where all their vocational programs are. It's a lot of high-bay space. So they would continue to have that facility for growth as well. I think ideally Dr. Julian would like to consolidate the other Lexington locations. But they did these projections. And it turns out to be it's about 12,000-some total students and faculty, but it's about 8,000 full-time students is where they see the growth in their enrollment for the next 20 years. And so I guess we kind of were limited. I think that was the revelation through the planning process is 48 acres sounds like a lot, but particularly if you keep the pleasure grounds and you have to do some parking, it's a relatively constrained site that, in fact, means that some of the buildings will be four and five stories. Well, that's exactly my point, because it seems to me their presentation by the architect was that it was three stories above ground. Well, that's residential scale in downtown Lexington now. I mean, below residential scale. So is this not going to be sort of an embarrassment unless we have a pop-up building, building where, like Central Baptist and St. Joe, you build the infrastructure, and then later on you put three more floors on. In response about the first building, that is the building just south of the Newtown entry, we had a lot of discussion with the community where there was a specific request that the frontage of Newtown Pike be kept to three stories because of the single family across the street. And so that's, I think, the way the campus plan was laid out was that buildings on Newtown Pike would be the only buildings that would be three-story. The rest of the buildings, more towards the interior, would pop up at a greater density. But that was kind of calculated in the 12,000 students as well. But that was the balance that was kind of tried to be struck was not overwhelming the other side of Newtown Pike, at least as definitely as it exists today. So we sort of threw out form follows function. I guess I wouldn't characterize it that way, surprisingly, but I think it was more kind of a transition from a single-family Georgetown Street neighborhood to a higher-density campus. They didn't have that problem at the Woodlands. Okay. Are there other commissioners who have a question? If not, thank you very much. I think this is a wonderful plan. It's going to be a great addition to the city. Thanks. Is there a, does the commission need to make a motion and recommendation approval of this plan? We do, is that correct? Your motion, in essence, what's your job in looking at a public facilities review, is just to send it forward with either you believe it does or does not comply with the comprehensive plan, and then you can also include in the motion the two recommendations. Thank you. If there are no further questions, any other comments from the audience? If there are no further questions, then I will entertain a motion. Madam Chairman, I'll move for approval of this Public Facility Review, PFR 2010-5, that it does meet the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, and I'd also like to move for the staff recommendations the two recommendations as well. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Is there a second? Second. Second. Second by Mr. Brouwer. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor please say aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next on the agenda, are there any staff announcements? Only, Madam Chair, that reminds you of your work session next week in this room. It will be an interesting session. The largest part will be some training for the Planning Commission on some environmental issues mandated under the consent decree. So we're looking forward to that. We will have a lot of outside folks here to do that for us. We're all looking forward. We'll have a lot of staff here as well. Any other comments? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. To adjourn. Motion's been made. Do I hear a second? Second. We're adjourned. We'll be right back. When the sun goes down We'll be grooving When the sun goes down We'll be feeling alright When the sun sinks down Over the water Everything gets hotter When the sun goes down When the sun goes down We'll be grooving When the sun goes down, be feeling all right. When the sun sinks down over the water, she thinks cracker's sexy when the sun goes down. We'll be feeling all right. When the sun sinks down over the water, Uncle Kenny's hotter when the sun goes down When the sun goes down We'll all be grooving when the sun goes down Hey Uncle Kenny, when the sun goes down Over the water, everything is hotter