# Planning Commission Meeting - February 10, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 10, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1878 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1878?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-02-10 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 8,939 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 February 10, 2011, 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 addressed 16 agenda items related to various property developments and subdivisions. The Commission took 9 motions and votes during the session and heard 11 public comments from attendees. Of the 16 agenda items considered, 15 were approved and one was postponed. The approved items included amendments and new developments across multiple properties and subdivisions, including Denton Farm Unit 4-A, Sunny Slope Farm Unit 1-H, Lansdowne Subdivision Unit 18-D, Roman Soldier Unit 1-C, Kirklevington North, Sharkey Property (Townley Centre), Beaumont Centre Unit 3-B, Bluegrass Executive Park Unit 1-B, Tuscany Unit 6, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Sharkey Property Unit 4 Section 2, Denton Farm Unit 1-G, South Hill Gardens, South Broadway University Development, and Lovell & Hart Realty Company. The Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property was postponed for further consideration. ## Attendance **Present:** Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Marie Copeland, Mike Owens, William Wilson, Eunice Beatty, Patrick Brewer, and Derek Paulsen. **Absent:** Carla Blanton and Ed Holmes. **Late:** Lynn Roche-Phillips arrived after the meeting began. ## Votes and Decisions **Postponement of PLAN 2010-131P: Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property** [timestamp: 00:05:40] A motion by William Wilson, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to postpone PLAN 2010-131P: Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property (AMD) to March 10, 2011 passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. **Consent Agenda Approval** [timestamp: 00:12:39] A motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve Consent Agenda items except DP 2011-4, with a revised condition on reciprocal access passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. **PLAN 2011-7F: Denton Farm, Inc.** [timestamp: 00:24:35] A motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Derek Paulsen, to approve PLAN 2011-7F: Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 1-G, Block J, Lots 31 & 32; Block L, Lots 1 & 27-30 (AMD) with condition #17 revised to 21 feet pedestrian access width passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. The condition specifies that the width of the proposed pedestrian access between lots 27 & 28 is to be 21 feet. **DP 2011-4: Kirklevington North** [timestamp: 00:35:07] A motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mike Cravens, to approve DP 2011-4: Kirklevington North (AMD) with revised condition #10 to denote reciprocal access passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. **Plan 2005-330F: South Hill Gardens** [timestamp: 00:41:43] A motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve Plan 2005-330F: South Hill Gardens with a waiver for public improvements and conditions passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. Conditions include no occupancy permit until Division of Engineering verifies public improvements, and the lighting pattern must match the approved plan. **DP 2011-5: South Broadway University Development** [timestamp: 00:49:18] A motion by Eunice Beatty, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve DP 2011-5: South Broadway University Development with removal of conditions #9 and #11 passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. **DP 2011-6: Lovell & Hart Realty Company** [timestamp: 01:16:24] A motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips, to approve DP 2011-6: Lovell & Hart Realty Company with 13 conditions passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. A key condition requires Board of Health approval of the septic system or documentation of sanitary sewer service prior to building permit issuance. **Performance Bonds** [timestamp: 01:17:36] A motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens, to approve release and call of performance bonds as stated in a memorandum dated February 10, 2011 passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. **Closed Session** [timestamp: 01:18:08] A motion by William Wilson, seconded by Mike Cravens, to convene a closed session to discuss pending litigation passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor. ## Public Comment The following individuals provided public comment during the meeting: **DP 2011-4: Kirklevington North Amendment** Richard Murphy requested removal of this item from the consent agenda to discuss a wording change in condition #10 regarding reciprocal parking and access [timestamp: 00:10:04]. Later, Dick Murphy confirmed agreement with staff's recommendation and clarified that five parking spaces are being granted to the Lansdowne Shopping Center [timestamp: 00:33:25]. **DP 2011-8: Beaumont Centre, Unit 3-B, Lot 6** Marie Copeland asked staff about the status of cleanup conditions on the Beaumont Centre plan, noting that the applicant had submitted a revised plan addressing conditions 11 through 20 [timestamp: 00:11:06]. **Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 1-G** Lynn Roche-Phillips raised several questions about the proposed green space. She asked about the intended use and improvements, including fencing, playgrounds, and maintenance plans [timestamp: 00:17:58]. She later inquired whether the green space could be used for sports [timestamp: 00:20:43] and whether sidewalks would be installed [timestamp: 00:22:24]. John Barlow, the applicant, confirmed that the green space is a passive area for mowing only, not for recreational use, and that the HOA will maintain it [timestamp: 00:19:03]. He also noted that the green space has a steep slope and is not suitable for athletic activities. Regarding sidewalks, the HOA advisory board opposes them due to water quality concerns and lack of use. **Plan 2005-330F: South Hill Gardens** Rena Wiseman supported the waiver request, explaining that installing curb and gutter simultaneously with house construction avoids costly repairs later [timestamp: 00:41:08]. **DP 2011-5: South Broadway University Development** Tom Lambden appreciated staff and traffic engineering's cooperation in resolving concerns and requested approval of the amended plan [timestamp: 00:48:15]. **DP 2011-6: Lovell & Hart Realty Company** Matt Carter explained that the new building will not increase impervious area and that the applicant is working with engineering and building inspection to resolve conditions [timestamp: 00:56:21]. Captain Charles Bowen expressed concern about fire truck access and egress on gravel surface but was reassured that paved areas are present in front of buildings [timestamp: 01:09:11]. ## Contested Items The meeting included three areas of significant disagreement among commissioners and staff: **Stormwater Detention for DP 2011-6** Commissioners were divided on whether stormwater detention was required for the project. The core dispute centered on whether detention was necessary despite the absence of an increase in impervious area. Concerns were raised about potential runoff into New Circle Road. The disagreement resulted in a split vote among commissioners on this issue. **Septic System and Runoff Conflict** Heated discussion arose regarding a potential conflict between stormwater runoff and septic system percolation. Commissioners expressed concerns about how these two systems might interact on the property. However, staff clarified the situation by confirming that the septic field was located away from the runoff area, which addressed the technical concern about system interference. **Fire Access on Gravel Surface** A procedural dispute emerged over fire department access and egress capabilities. The fire department raised concerns about whether fire trucks could safely access and exit the property on gravel surfaces. This concern was resolved by confirming that paved areas exist in front of the buildings, providing the necessary access for emergency vehicles. ## Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property (A Portion of) (AMD) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2010-131P **Discussion Summary** The board considered a plan amendment for the Hillenmeyer Property and a portion of the DWS Property. [timestamp: 00:04:37] Rory Kahly presented on this agenda item. During the discussion, concerns were raised regarding development in proximity to a cemetery and environmentally sensitive areas. **Outcome** The plan was postponed to the March 10, 2011 meeting. The applicant requested a one-month delay to address the concerns raised. ## Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 4-A, Block J, Lots 26-30; Block L, Lots 31-35 (AMD) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2011-8F **Item Type:** Consent Agenda This matter was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:06:43]. The application involved property at Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 4-A, specifically Block J, Lots 26-30 and Block L, Lots 31-35. **Key Participants:** - Chris King - Bill Sallee - Tom Martin **Summary:** The applicant had submitted a revised proposal that addressed most cleanup conditions from the initial review. The approval was granted with conditions related to: - Easements - Recordation order - Cleanup items The revised submission demonstrated the applicant's responsiveness to staff requirements, allowing the item to move forward as part of the consent agenda without requiring extended discussion or debate. **Outcome:** Approved ## Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 1-H **Identifier:** PLAN 2011-9F **Outcome:** Approved This item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:07:16]. The approval included several conditions that applicants must satisfy. **Key Participants:** - Chris King - Bill Sallee - Tom Martin **Conditions of Approval:** The approval was contingent upon the following requirements: - Floodplain status compliance - Tree canopy compliance - Coordination with prior plats The consent agenda format indicates this item was processed with other routine matters without extended individual discussion, though the named participants were involved in the review and approval process. ## Lansdowne Subdivision, Unit 18-D, Section 7, Lot 7 (AMD) **Identifier:** PLAN 2011-10F This item was approved as part of the consent agenda. [timestamp: 00:07:48] The proposal for Lansdowne Subdivision, Unit 18-D, Section 7, Lot 7 was discussed by Chris King, Bill Sallee, and Tom Martin. The approval included conditions related to: - Maintenance requirements - Utility easements - Pedestrian access to adjacent park **Outcome:** Approved ## Roman Soldier, Unit 1-C, Lot 12 (AMD) **Identifier:** PLAN 2011-11F This item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:08:21]. The proposal for Roman Soldier, Unit 1-C, Lot 12 (AMD) included several conditions for approval: - Firewalls - Utility easements - Land surveyor certification **Key Participants** The discussion involved Chris King, Bill Sallee, and Tom Martin. **Outcome** The item was approved with the specified conditions in place. ## Kirklevington North (AMD) **Application:** DP 2011-4 **Outcome:** Approved **Discussion Summary:** The meeting addressed the Kirklevington North application, with Tom Martin and Dick Murphy serving as key speakers on this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:26:52] The primary focus of discussion centered on parking arrangements for the development. Following deliberation between staff and the applicant, a revised approach to the project's parking provisions was agreed upon. **Key Decision:** Condition #10 was revised to denote reciprocal access instead of reciprocal parking. This modification reflected a consensus between staff and the applicant regarding how off-site parking would be utilized for the project. The application was approved with this revised condition in place. ## Sharkey Property (Townley Centre), Unit 11, Lots 8 & 13 (AMD) **Agenda Item:** DP 2011-7 This item concerning the Sharkey Property at Townley Centre, Unit 11, Lots 8 & 13 was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:08:58]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Chris King, Bill Sallee, and Tom Martin. **Outcome** The proposal was approved with conditions. The approval included requirements related to: - Tree islands - Pedestrian easements - Compliance with notification requirements The item was processed through the consent agenda, indicating it was approved without requiring separate debate or a distinct vote from other agenda items. ## Beaumont Centre, Unit 3-B, Lot 6 **Identifier:** DP 2011-8 This item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:09:30]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Chris King, Bill Sallee, and Tom Martin. **Outcome** The proposal was approved with conditions. The approval included requirements for: * Zoning corrections * Building dimensions specifications * Access details ## Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1-B, Block F, Lot 2 (AMD) & Lot 7 **Agenda Item:** DP 2011-9 This item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:10:04]. The approval included specific conditions related to tree canopy, easement release, and the timing of street tree installation. **Key Speakers:** - Chris King - Bill Sallee - Tom Martin **Outcome:** The item was approved with conditions. ## Tuscany, Unit 6, Lot 2 **Identifier:** DP 2011-10 **Item Type:** Consent Agenda This item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:10:35]. The discussion involved Chris King, Bill Sallee, and Tom Martin. **Approval and Conditions** The proposal for Tuscany, Unit 6, Lot 2 was approved with the following conditions: * Building dimensions requirements * Access drive width specifications * Compliance with Board of Adjustment requirements **Outcome** The item was approved. ## Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Lots 16-19 (AMD) **Item:** DP 2011-11 This agenda item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:11:06]. The project involved Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Lots 16-19 and was processed as an amendment (AMD). **Key Participants** The item was addressed by Chris King, Bill Sallee, and Tom Martin. **Approval and Conditions** The proposal was approved with the following conditions: - Consolidation plat certification required - Developer name addition to documentation **Outcome** The item was approved as presented on the consent agenda. ## Sharkey Property, Unit 4, Section 2 (& Residential Service Building) (AMD#2) **Identifier:** DP 2010-9 **Type:** Consent Agenda Item **Outcome:** Approved This agenda item addressed the Sharkey Property development for Unit 4, Section 2, including a Residential Service Building. The item represented an amendment (AMD#2) to the project. **Key Speakers:** - Chris King - Bill Sallee - Tom Martin **Action Taken:** The project was approved with revised conditions. The approval included: - A waiver to Article 6-8(b) - Resolution of detention basin use - Variance approval for frontage yard **Discussion:** The item was presented and discussed by the key speakers listed above. [timestamp: 00:11:38] ## Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 1-G, Block J, Lots 31 & 32; Block L, Lots 1 & 27-30 (AMD) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2011-7F The meeting included discussion of an amendment to the Denton Farm, Inc. development plan for Unit 1-G, involving Block J, Lots 31 & 32 and Block L, Lots 1 & 27-30. [timestamp: 00:13:35] Key speakers on this item included John Barlow and Tom Martin. **Outcome** The amendment was approved with a revision to condition #17. The condition was modified to reduce the pedestrian access width from 24 feet to 21 feet. According to the applicant's explanation, the pedestrian access leads to a private greenway area, which supported the rationale for the reduced width. ## South Hill Gardens **Project Identifier:** PLAN 2005-330F **Type:** Discussion **Key Speakers:** Rena Wiseman, Tom Martin **Outcome:** Approved The South Hill Gardens project was discussed and ultimately approved by the meeting body. [timestamp: 00:36:10] The approval included a waiver for public improvements, specifically for curb, gutter, and sidewalk construction. The project was approved subject to conditions that require verification of both construction compliance and lighting compliance before the project may proceed. ## South Broadway University Development (AMD) **Agenda Item:** DP 2011-5 **Type:** Discussion **Outcome:** Approved The South Broadway University Development project underwent discussion and review during this meeting. Key speakers on this agenda item included Tom Lambden and Tom Martin [timestamp: 00:43:17]. The project was approved with modifications to the original conditions. Specifically, conditions #9 and #11 were removed from the approval following actions taken by the applicant. The applicant secured an off-site parking lease, which addressed parking requirements for the development. Additionally, the applicant confirmed traffic impact mitigation measures, satisfying concerns related to traffic impacts from the project. The removal of these two conditions reflected the applicant's successful completion of these critical project requirements prior to final approval. ## Lovell & Hart Realty Company (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2011-6 **Type:** Discussion **Outcome:** Approved with 13 conditions [timestamp: 00:50:29] The board discussed and approved the Lovell & Hart Realty Company application, designated DP 2011-6. Key participants in the discussion included Matt Carter, Captain Charles Bowen, and Hillard Newman. The application was approved subject to 13 conditions. Among the required conditions were Board of Health approval for the septic system and documentation of stormwater management practices. During the discussion, concerns were raised regarding runoff and the interaction between the septic system and stormwater management. Despite these concerns, the board moved forward with approval, contingent upon the conditions being satisfied. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone PLAN 2010-131P: Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property (AMD) to March 10, 2011 - **Motion** — passed: Approve Consent Agenda items except DP 2011-4, with revised condition on reciprocal access - **Motion** — passed: Approve PLAN 2011-7F: Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 1-G, Block J, Lots 31 & 32; Block L, Lots 1 & 27-30 (AMD) with condition #17 revised to 21 feet pedestrian access width - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2011-4: Kirklevington North (AMD) with revised condition #10 to denote reciprocal access - **Motion** — passed: Approve Plan 2005-330F: South Hill Gardens with waiver for public improvements and conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2011-5: South Broadway University Development with removal of conditions #9 and #11 - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2011-6: Lovell & Hart Realty Company with 13 conditions including Board of Health approval for septic system - **Motion** — passed: Approve release and call of performance bonds as stated in memorandum dated February 10, 2011 - **Motion** — passed: Convene closed session to discuss pending litigation --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Our withdrawals. Does anyone have a postponement withdrawal? Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Rory Koehler with EA Partners. Page 1, first item on your page, plan 2010-131P Hillemeyer property. Request a one-month postponement to March 10th. Is that the correct date? Yes, ma'am. That is the correct date. All right. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to this postponement? If not, I'll turn it over to the Commission for either objection or for a motion to postpone for one month to May 10th, Plan 2010-131P Hill and Meyer property and DWS property. The motion has been made by Mr. Wilson. Do I hear a second? Second by Mr. Cravens. Sorry. All in favor, please vote electronically. How about if everybody would like to say either aye or nay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? motion carries. It was a very difficult postponement, and I apologize. Are there any other postponements or withdrawals? If not, then we'll move on to the consent agenda. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. Good afternoon. Happy to report many items on your meeting agenda are also on your consent agenda today. First is a number of four record plats all recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. First item is on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda, Plan 2011-8F, an amended final record plat for the Denton Farm Incorporated, Unit 4A, for lots 31 through 35. This is for property located on Weston Park. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on your consent agenda, page 3, item C, plan 2011-9F, final record plat for Sunny Slope Farm, unit 1H. This is for property at 350 Waveland Museum Lane. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, plan 2011-10F, on page 3, item D. It's an amended final record plat for Lansdowne Subdivision, unit 18D, for property at 3461 Red Coach Lane. The next plat on your agenda, page 3, item E, is also on your consent agenda, an amended final record plat, Plan 2011-11F, Roman Soldier, Unit 1C, Lot 12. This is for property on Sugar Creek Drive. In addition, there are a number of final development plans that appear in your consent agenda. First is on page 3, item A, DP 2011-4, Kirk Levington North amended. This is for property at 3391 Tates Creek Road. On page 4, item D, on your meeting agenda, an amended final record, pardon me, an amended final development plan, DP 2011-7, Sharkey Property, also known as Townley Center, Unit 11, Lots 8 and 13. This is for property on Town Center Drive and Sharkey Way. Next item on your meeting agenda, page 5, item E, is also on the consent agenda, DP 2011-8F, Beaumont Center, Unit 3B, Lot 6, for property at 3100 Wall Street. Another item on your consent agenda is page 5, item F, DP 2011-9, Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1B, Block F, Lot 2 amended, and Lot 7 for property on Buena Vista Road. On page 5, item G, this item also is on your consent agenda, DP 2011-10, Tuscany Unit 6, Lot 2 for property at 2599 Rosebud Road. On page 6, item H, DP 2011-11 is also on your consent agenda, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Blot 16 through 19 amended. This is for property at 3312 Beacon Street. And the final item on your consent agenda is on page 6, item I, DP 2010-9, amendment number 2 to a final development plan for Sharkey Property Unit 4, Section 2, and the residential service building. This is for property at 1700 Pleastown Road, a portion of that property, and also at 148 Louis Place. These development plans have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee, and all of your consent agenda items can be considered at this time unless a member of the commission or a member of the audience would like one of these items pulled for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to pull one of these off of the consent agenda for discussion. Madam Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On the first item under two final development plans, page three, item eight, DP 2011-4, Kirk Levington North Amendment, I'm representing the owners. We have a small wording change in one of the conditions, which I think the staff has agreed to, but since it's a change in the wording of a condition, I'm told we need to take it off and have a real short hearing about it. So I'd request that one be taken off the consent agenda. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience, their commission member who would like to pull anything from the consent agenda? Ms. Copeland? I would like information from the staff on the status of the 20 conditions on the Beaumont Center Unit 3B, Lot 6. During subdivision, we noted that there were a number of cleanup conditions here, and the agreement was that they would clean them up had they been cleaned up. We have received a revised submission on that, and the staff is comfortable approving it with the 20 conditions. However, we can present a revised recommendation to you that outlines which of these conditions have been met by the revised submission, if you wish. How many conditions are we at now? They have met the cleanup conditions, 8 through, excuse me, 11 through 20. All the basic cleanup conditions, dimensions, things like that have been met with the revision. Great. Thank you. So we're going to leave that on? Leave it on. Are there any other commission members who want to pull anything off the consent agenda? If not, then the Chair will entertain a motion for those remaining, with the exception of DP2011-4. That one we will hear. I have a motion. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of the consent agenda as read with the exception of DP 2011-4, Kirkland and North. I have a motion from Mr. Owens. Second. Second by Mr. Patrick. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. All right. Turn it over to the staff then. Thank you. MS. Thank you. MS. Thank you. MS. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to see if everybody is ready. Good afternoon. If you turn to page two, we are going to look at the first plan under the final subdivision plans, Plan 2011-7F, Denton Farm, Unit 1G. This is an amended final record plat. They're wanting to create two new lots on the property. This is Denton Farm, which is located out Richmond Road, heading out towards the interstate. We come in the main entrance off of Ellerslie and then turn on to Weston Park. This is a private road. They originally had six lots in this area. Now they're coming back and wanting to create two new additional lots and at the same time some additional easements to cover this because they're having to move some easements around. The subdivision committee had taken and reviewed this plan and had recommended it with the 17 conditions and recommended it for approval. We have our standard sign-offs for the first six to note that this property shall be developed in accordance with the pro-final development plan. They have amended the final development plan to show these additional lots, so now creating this final record plan, creating the two lots does match their development plan. Several of the other conditions are cleanup conditions. We have one condition on the end, number 17, it says discuss the width of the proposed pedestrian access between lots 27 and 28. When this plan was originally brought in, when we had the six lots of this area, they had 24 feet. Now that they're relotting these, we're dropping this to 21 feet to go into their HOA green area. We've been looking at plans when they're going into the green space area to try to widen that area to 30 feet. But with this being a private area, they wanted to reduce it with creating these additional lots down to 21 feet. With that, that discussion was left open. And we believe that because it's going into a neighborhood that the 21 feet would be okay with that, with the private neighborhood green area instead of going into a public greenway. If there's any other questions. If there are questions from any commission member. Mr. Roman. Thank you. I understand the desire to increase the lots, number of lots and so forth, and as a result to kind of, I guess, decrease the width. It seems like, to me, the lot to the left of the pedestrian access may be a little wider than the two in the middle. Do you have the widths of those varying lots? Yes. This is approximately 70 feet, 75 feet. This one here is about 75 feet on the curve right here. Okay. I believe that's the lot you're talking about. Yeah, that's the lot I'm talking about. They range about 70, 75 feet. Okay, so you've got one at 70 and then a couple at 75. Yeah, I don't have a calculator right now. Yeah, no, that's okay. That's okay. or just in the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions? What are the ordinance requirements for access to homeowners association areas? Something that we're working on right now to come up with a standard. Okay. There's nothing in the ordinance at this point. Is the HOA area intended to be fenced? Is it going to be a dog lot? or a top lot? I couldn't answer that information. I don't know. The client could probably answer that for you. Yeah, I'd be interested to know if there are going to be any improvements, which would give us a sense of, you know, ingress and egress along that 21-foot easement. Any other questions? Other questions? Not. Thank you very much. Petitioner? Yes, my name is John Barlow with DeLong State's Development Company. I'm the applicant, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Ms. Phillips had a question. Would you like to repeat that? If you could just give us a sense of what improvements, if any, are intended for that green space behind those lots. Yes, ma'am. This is one of four what we call viewshed passive areas in the Eldersley Sub Division, which is the Denton Farms. And it's strictly passive. There's no fencing. There isn't any jungle gyms, not anything, because most of the – well, all the – It's been, that's how it's been marketed. And really don't see, probably the only reason why you have those pedestrian accesses is to get the bush hogs in and out of there so they can be mowed. How much land is in that homeowner's area? How much land are we talking about? That meadow is probably somewhere between three and five acres. There's four of them, and I can't remember the acreage. And I don't think that's all, that's the total acreage. This is a portion of, and this one's shown right now, it's 2.630. And it's dedicated homeowners association area that will never be platted? Correct. The Denton Farms had to have, I think out of the 207 acres, there's 77 acres of open space. and a lot of it has to do with the special design area that had to meet the 60 percent open space requirement. Are there other questions? Ms. Copeland? Mr. Barlow, can you give us some sense as to the topography? Is it rolling? Is it a swamp with cattails? What is the nature of the open space? There's a microphone right on the desk. If you'd pick that up, please make sure we get this recorded. This is on? The topography starts high up here and falls this way. But could I play soccer there? No. Could I play croquet? The balls would break a lot when you hit them. Okay. Okay. Could I play badminton softball? You couldn't play softball. Once again, the grade's about like this, so the badminton field would not be level. Okay. So it's not going to be a high, intense use area? No, ma'am. I've talked to several of the HOA members over the years, and the intent at this point is just to be a pasture that's mowed very well. And HOA's going to mow it? Yes, ma'am. They're doing it as we speak. Or, I mean, they've been doing it for the last four years. I don't think they're mowing today. No, ma'am. Are there other questions from Commission members? Ms. Jones. Thank you. Ms. Burlow, you know, I guess as much as anything with this being listed as proposed pedestrian access, that's what's catching a lot of attention and so forth. And, you know, pedestrian access to me, you know, I would like to see improvements such as sidewalk. Now that if this is a sidewalk going nowhere, that might be a little different. And, you know, the intended use of that HOA area, I guess, is the key there. What's your thoughts as far as a sidewalk would be concerned? Well, I have an advisory board that I'm kind of incubating because over the next two years, they'll probably take over running the HOA. and that was staff brought that up and I talked to one of the members and they're not in favor of it. Number one, if you pour concrete, then that generates a water quality bill that they, because once you pay something, you just have to pay a tax on it now. So they're not in favor of it. Number one, they won't be using it. Once again, it's strictly at this point to get the bush hogs in and out of there. My only concern, you say, at this point, there's nothing there, obviously. But I'm just wondering if it would be used. If you build it, will they come, so to speak, as well? It's kind of a catch-22, I guess. Well, once again, with the topography falling at the grade, it does. there's not any athletic functions that could be performed on it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this? If not, then I'll turn it over to the Commission for further discussion or for a motion for approval or disapproval. Madam Chairman. Mr. Cravens. I'd like to move approval of Plan 2011-7F and 17. I guess we just leave that at 21 feet. Is that what it's with the access easement to be 21 feet as drawn? Is there a second? Motions made by Mr. Craven, second by Mr. Paulson. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Before we move on to development plans, we do have an addendum item. Am I jumping ahead? That I think needs to be taken care of before we move forward. Is that correct? So we'll give you a moment to set up for Plan 2005-330F, the South Hill Gardens. I would only add, Madam Chairman, that I don't see any representative of the applicant in the audience at this time. They may be unaware of their position on the agenda due to the nature of the addendum. Should we then, in fact, are you asking that I wait and do this toward the end? Madam Chair, I would suggest that you proceed with the regular agenda and then come back to the subdivision. That would be fine. We will do that then. Okay. Now we move on to development plans. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 3 at the bottom under development plans. It is DP 2011-4, Kirk Levington North amended. This is an amended development plan. It's located out on Taits Creek Road with the intersection of Malibu Drive. It's immediately adjacent to the Lansdowne Shopping Center. This is the service road off Malibu Drive that comes behind these properties into the Lansdowne Shopping Area. This is the Speedway. The amended area that you see before you today is the Arby's that is located on this property. They are proposing with this amendment to do interior remodeling of the Arby's and change the circulation pattern and the drive-through aisle and realign some of the parking and the dumpster on the property. Again, circulation in this pattern for the drive-through and off the property. This plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for approval subject to the conditions that you see. Subsequently, staff did have a conversation with the applicant. We were aware that they desired to pull it in order to address the condition. I believe you should have a handout with revised conditions before you today. The conditions that are on this plan are your basic sign off conditions being a final development plan. There was also a series of clean up conditions. They have addressed those as you can see. They have added their FEMA information. They've denoted their contour source. They've denoted their construction entrance, their building height and they've addressed as well, these off-site improvements. Originally there were some off-site improvements shown on this plan that gave staff some concern about the function of this access, which is off-site for the drive-through. You can see that with this submission they have removed that from the plan as well. So they have addressed quite a few of your cleanup conditions that existed on this plan. They have a concern with condition number 10 on your revised handout, which is the denote reciprocal parking and access. This is not uncommon on development plans that staff request this sort of thing. This is an older development plan. These were the original properties on the development plan. They have always shared access. They have in fact never had a requirement for reciprocal parking. In this particular instance, they both meet, they both provide the required parking that they have to have, and the applicant is going a step further in that these five spaces here are being provided for the use of the Lansdowne Shopping Center, which enables them to meet their required parking. So with that and with our conversations with the applicant, staff would be comfortable to alter condition number 10 on your handout to read denote reciprocal access, deleting the parking from that note. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Are there questions from any commission members? Mr. Owens? Thank you. Tom, when you're talking about access, denote reciprocal access, are you talking about is that a speedway or a marathon lot? Are you talking about those two lots, or are you talking about the Lansdowne lot as well? It will function at this time both ways. Okay. Yes, it will. It currently exists this way and back here. It will also exist in this fashion. And they have an agreement with Lansdowne, as I understand it. Access, does that include the stacking that's going to go on off-site for the drive-thru? As a matter of fact, yes, sir. Okay. They do have stacking, but their menu board is out here, so there will be some stacking in this drive-thru aisle on this property. That is not unusual internally to a lot of properties around town. I see it all the time. I just normally don't see it off-site per se. That's my question. Is this going to cover the off-site stacking for the drive-thru as well? Yes, sir. Okay. Are there other questions? Ms. Copeland? Ms. Martin, if I understood you right, those between the menu place, the outside menu, down to would be south, those parking spaces are now going to be for the other, the big Lansdowne-Chonking Center? Yes, ma'am. They are going to be assigned by the applicant for the use. say denote reciprocal parking because that's parking that's used by the other people. The applicant, I know, can expand on this, but very simply, they would be granting the parking to Lansdowne, but they can't impose that agreement on Lansdowne. They're not a part of this plan. So in effect, they're granting reciprocal parking only on their property. They're not gaining any reciprocal parking. Well, shouldn't that be a note? They are going to denote on the plan that those parking spaces are for the use of the Lansdowne shopping area. Shouldn't that be a note here on our list? I think we're comfortable with the conditions that you see. Are there other questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner? Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy, representing Lex Arb, which is the owner of the property. Bill Ellison and Reza Tamaji are the owners of Lex Arb. Reza Tamaji is with me in the back today. And Lonnie Smith from LS Design is our architect. Harvey Johnson, landscape architect, CRP and associates. Chaz Haidt is with me today, too. I just wanted to note everybody's here for us today. Appreciate you hearing this. and we agree with what the staff had recommended, what it is we are having, those five spaces for Lansdowne Shopping Center on our property. It's not over the entire lot, and we just needed to clarify that. The property owners out there are extremely cooperative with each other right now. They make everything work. Of course, when you're doing a development plan, you have to plan for a situation maybe in the future if they didn't get along and put it all on your plan and everything. I have put in the record a letter from the owners of Lansdowne Shopping Center where they're agreeing with the layout changes we're making on our site here. And like I said, they work very well together. And we think that this will improve the traffic situation out there very much. We're taking our drive-through traffic out of the service road, which has been a problem in that area. So we're agreeing, we agree with the change to what used to be condition 15, which is now condition 10, which will say denote reciprocal access. Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Murphy? Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the commission. For discussion and or a motion. I shall move for approval of DP 2011-4, Kirk Levington North amended. I have a motion by Mr. Brewer. Is there a second? Yes. That's with changing number 10 to say denote reciprocal access. Okay. Second by Mr. Cravens. All in favor, please vote electronically or all opposed? Vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman, the representative of the applicant under your final subdivision plans is now here. If you'd like to return to your agenda in order. That would be fine. Thank you very much. On the last page of your agenda is an addendum for Plan 2005-330F South Hill Gardens at 412 South Mill Street and 421 through 437 Lawrence Street. We're going to hear that at this time. Thank you. have before you today is for a final subdivision plan, Plan 2005-330F, South Hill Gardens. This is a final record plat that has been before you for reapproval on several occasions. It is back before you today with a waiver request, and that should be, again, have handed out to you and you should have that at your seats. This is the South Hill Gardens plat in question. It is located at South Mill and Lawrence Street. Here we have West Maxwell Street and Pine Street. This is the plat that is associated with the development plan that you amended last month and that you change the zone on for this Lawrence Street frontage. The waiver that you have before you today goes directly to a condition on this plan about the public improvements along Lawrence Street. And we misspelled it. I did. I misspelled it last on that plan. That was me. but I printed very prettily, which I normally do not do. Again, back to the record plat, and the waiver request that you see before you relates to the Lawrence Street frontage. They are requesting a waiver to the public improvements. Those public improvements that are required are curb, gutter. They're also requesting a waiver to the sidewalk, but those are bondable. So in essence, they're just asking to add the curb and gutter to the bonding of the sidewalk. They are going to build these public improvements at the same time they build a single-family home that you can see on your development plan. Staff has reviewed this. We have recommended approval. We have a couple of conditions for that approval that you can see on your report. One is that no occupancy permit shall be issued until the Division of Engineering has verified the public improvements have been constructed in compliance with the engineering manuals. That's very standard in these situations that we make sure that engineering has a chance to verify that these have been put in appropriately. The second one is just a condition to make sure that the lighting pattern here matches the lighting pattern that you approved on this plan. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin. We're talking about curb and gutter all the way from Maxwell down to Pine Street. What is the street down there? In other words, the entire length of that block. It will be 211 feet approximately down the frontage of their property. There's property that separates them from Pine and a piece that separates them from Maxwell as well. Are there other questions? Ms. Phillips? I was just going to say, haven't we done this before? And maybe we should consider an amendment to the ordinance to allow these kinds of things to be bonded? Yes, ma'am. That is something we should consider, certainly. But we also think it's also appropriate for them to come to this body. Okay. I see. Other questions or comments? Not thank you, Mr. Martin. Petitioner. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Rena Wiseman for WML Properties. We are in agreement with the staff recommendation and the conditions. And, again, the purpose of this is that so that we can do all these, put the curb and gutter in when we're doing the house. Because if we put in the driveway after this is done, it gets torn up. And that happens in your subdivisions all the time. The curb and gutter is in, the builder comes in, puts the driveway, and then the developer has to go back and fix it. So we'll save that step and just do them all at one time. So thank you for considering our request. Are there any questions, the petitioner? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment? If not, I'll turn it over to the commission for either further discussion or for a motion. Ms. Phillips. Ms. Madam Chair, I move approval of Plan 2005-330F, South Hill Gardens, per the conditions that are provided on our agenda, including acceptance of the waiver, approval of the waiver. Motion has been made by Ms. Phillips, seconded by Mr. Brewer. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 4. It is item B, DP 2011-5, South Broadway University Development amended. This area, as I'm sure you all are aware, is known as Newtown Crossing. It is a large apartment complex for students attending the University of Kentucky. This you can see is the entire development plan as it borders on South Broadway. Here is the railroad that borders the property. This would be towards town and towards the overpass and towards the Newtown Pike extension. There is the speedway over here and of course Angliana in this direction on this property. Foreman Avenue is actually now closed and is an access easement that serves the property. Here is a close up of the area of amendment. The area of amendment is strictly for the B1 lot located here. Here is the old Rogers restaurant, and I think after that the Blue Note lounge or bar, a place of some notoriety, we've been informed. They are proposing to amend this property to change the parking in this area and had a drive-thru lane for a Gold Star Chili restaurant. Thank you. With the drive-thru here. Staff met with the applicant numerous times in developing this plan. There were considerable concerns about the impact of the drive-thru on the public right-of-way, and they, in fact, amended the plan a couple of times or proposed a couple of different layouts until we reached agreement on the layout that you see before you today. There was also a staff concern about the parking. Again, as most people are aware, parking is at a premium in this development. And so the impact of this proposal was reducing parking on the B-1 lot. So staff had concerns about how that would be addressed. And initially, if you look at your conditions, you will see under item 9 that they were going to have to go to the Board of Adjustment to get approval of a parking variance. The good news is that they have reached an agreement with the adjoining property owner, the apartment complex. They have agreed to lease them eight off-site parking spaces. With that lease and with the 13 spaces that they are providing on-site, They now meet their minimum on this site and can proceed forward if you should approve the plan. We have asked that they add back to the plan, and they did so, this satellite parking area. That was dropped off the original submission, although this is on the approved development plan. We've not had time to fully verify the accuracy of this rendition, So we see no reason to actually remove that condition from your agenda at this time. However, you can remove the ninth condition, denote Board of Adjustment approval. That is no longer necessary, and that request has been withdrawn. And item 11, of course, is discuss the proposed drive-through lane and required parking. We presented that to you today, and I will very briefly again show you that they have proposed to come in off Foreman and circulate in this fashion through the property. It will be one way, of course, and then back out. There will be some stacking along Foreman in this location, but they are providing considerable stacking on their property, and that was the principal concern that staff, along with traffic, had as to the proper function at this site. The staff has also been informed that in their discussions with traffic engineering that they have agreed to limit the hours of operation on the property, and traffic said they would be more than happy to deal with that restriction through their sign-off working with the applicant. We wanted you to know that, that that is another concern that's being addressed by your staff. With that, your subdivision committee did recommend approval of the plan. Mr. Martin, were we changing anything in number 11? You can, we have discussed it, and should you choose to, of course, you can drop that if you're happy with the presentation and with how it's being presented on the plan. Thank you. Are there questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner? Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I'm Tom Lambden with Midwest Engineering. And Mr. Martin gave a pretty concise presentation of kind of the development of the plan. And I'd like to thank the planning staff and traffic for being so accommodating and working with us to solve some of the problems. And I think we've worked it out about the best that we can. And I would just like to ask for approval unless you have any further questions. Thank you. Are there questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the Commission for either further discussion or for a motion. I move that we accept DP 2011-5, South Broadway University Development, removing the conditions number 9 and number 11. We have a motion from Ms. Beatty. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? Ms. Copeland? No, I just want to thank everybody for massaging this in place. It's a really nice, clean plan. Thank you, Mr. Lamb. We have a motion and a second. If there's no discussion, then please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right. All right, the next item on your agenda is on page four. It is DP 2011-6, Level and Hart Realty Company. There's a final development plan for property located at 1399 East New Circle Road. The property is located just north of Palumbo Drive, just south of the railroad crossing. The R.J. Corman line here. Young Drive is here in the car dealership, directly across the little triangular piece. The property has right in, right out access only on a new circle road. The purpose of the amendment is to add a 3,150-square-foot building in this corner of the property. The Subdivision Committee recommended postponement at the last meeting subject to the 12 conditions that are shown on your agenda. There was concern by the Subdivision Committee related to a number of issues, particularly the stormwater detention. The staff has a condition on the plan to denote that stormwater detention area. However, the subdivision committee had questions for the applicant related to stormwater as well as to the timing of his construction and his acquisition of his building permits and postponed this plan to hopefully get a little information from the applicant or the developer himself on this. The staff had a discussion with Division of Engineering and Division of Building Inspection, and there was a concern over the fact that there is an existing septic system on this site, and both Building Inspection and Engineering wanted an additional note added to the plan. This is number 13 for the Board of Health approval of septic system or documentation of the Sanitary Sewer Service to be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. I'll put that on the overhead. So the only revision staff would have to the plan is the addition of that note number 13. With that, I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Are there questions? From the Commission. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen. Chris, the corner building that is being built? Yes. To begin with, I think we had another subdivision, that was not permitted? We learned at Subdivision Committee, I believe at the same time as you, that that building had started construction and the building permits had not been issued at that time. And a stop work order has been? That's correct. Okay. Is it just that corner building? You've got two others that's shaded in and it's just outlined in purple. These two exist and this one exists as well. The new building is this one going in right here. Okay. That's what's proposed. All right. So the other two did exist already? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions? Mr. Perlis? Do we know why it was started without the appropriate permits? No, sir. Staff received the plan. We reviewed the plan. A lot of the times the history going on between building permits to stop work, orders, that sort of thing, first we'll hear of it is when the plan comes in. And through subdivision committee when the applicant shows up to answer questions, it'll be sometimes the first time we'll have heard that there was what precipitated the plan coming in. I think there's at least one question for the applicant. Are there other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Oh, sorry, Chris. Mr. Taylor. I'm sorry. I was probably passing notes and not paying attention. Just trying to be honest. They don't have septic? They're not on the city sewer? No, ma'am. They do have an existing septic system out there. Will we be adding plumbing facilities to this building, or is it just going to be a storage facility? It says it's a warehouse and storage. I think there was concern from building inspection and engineering that there, I don't know the history on the site, but I'm not sure anyone has ever inspected the septic system, and I think before they issued a building permitted standard practice for where there's an existing septic and new buildings going up to have Board of Health approval. And the amendment of this development plan with new square footage and new buildings, they wanted that approval from Board of Health. Is this property owned by the Young Storage Company? No, it is not. Okay. Is this the property that's being used, though, by a moving company? I don't think so anymore. I don't think so. I think a new person has purchased it, and that's the motivation for the new building. Okay. And it's just a warehouse? Correct. Ms. Darling. Thank you. I'm sorry. Mr. Taylor, did you mention much about the stormwater detention? No, the plan does not indicate where the stormwater is, how it's to be handled. There is a requirement under Article 21 of the ordinance that they denote the location of stormwater. That is the standard condition we have on your agenda. Staff was comfortable with an approval recommendation to the subdivision committee subject to them denoting their stormwater detention areas. That location is subject to engineering's approval. So we would look for engineering approval of that location and how it is to be handled and a note or something to the plan that meets the condition to noting it. But it is not shown at this time. It is something that would have to be addressed and shown on the plan before it's certified. Okay. Are there other questions? Thank you very much. Petitioner. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Matt Carter. I'm with Vision Engineering, and I'm here to represent the applicant. I would point out that of the 12, well, now 13 conditions, seven of those are sign-offs, various sign-offs. Of the remaining condition, condition number A, denote height of proposed building. I've spoke with the applicant, and it's going to be 25 feet tall. Denote stormwater detention areas or off-site locations. What I want to do is work with engineering. We feel like detention is not necessary because we're not increasing any of the existing impermeable areas on the site. We're keeping it as is, so we feel like no additional detention is required. But we will work with engineering as part of the sign-off process. clarify the extent of the paving and gravel. That's note 10. I spoke with the owner on this, and on our original submittal, the area to the south of the entrance was all gravel, and he wishes to keep that gravel, and I spoke with building inspection, and they would like, if it's going to remain gravel and be used for outdoor storage, which is his intent. They asked that a screening fence, I believe six feet in height, and proper landscaping be added. So the owners agreed to do that to build an inspection's approval. Item number 11, document easement encroachments prior to certification. We are working on finding out about the 80-foot easement and the building encroachments. The original development plan went back to 1967, I believe, 44 years ago. And I've spoke with Kentucky Utilities. They said it's not their line. It's Kentucky Utilities Transmission, which is a different branch. they gave me a name and a number to call there have not been able to get a hold of them but it hasn't bothered them for 44 years I don't know why it would now but the buildings that do encroach are existing buildings and they've been there I don't know how long but they have been there for some time the new building we're proposing will not encroach in the easement item number 12 it says clarify the use of the concrete pad or building at the southern end of the property there used to be a office building at the southern end and the applicant has removed the building he has no intention to put a new building back and there's a concrete pad that remains and I spoke to him about his intentions for this pad and he's just going to use it as a storage pad. So we will include that in with the gravel area and put a fence and landscaping to screen it. So with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. MS. Are there questions from Ms. Phillips? MS. I can't tell. I haven't seen this plat up close. But are those dashed? They look to be red, those vertical lines. Is that the easement for the utilities? MR. This area right here? MS. Uh-huh. MR. Yeah, that's the 80-foot transmission easement. MS. Okay. And you said that the buildings won't encroach? This will not encroach. This is an existing building and this one. And like I said, they've been there some time. I don't know how long. And they do encroach. Got it. And that's what I'm trying to resolve with KU Transmission. But so far, I haven't had any luck. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Carter, can you tell us about the building without a permit? Well, the applicant, he hasn't built the building yet. He started the building, and what he's done is put up some framing for it. I'm not sure. I guess he was not aware of the process, but during his construction of the frame, building inspection came by and said, you need to get a permit. So he hired me to resolve the issues. Upon meeting with building inspection and trying to get his permit, we discovered there was a development plan for it. A lot of times, a lot of cases for a zone of this type, a development plan is not required unless there was a previous one. Well, in this case, in 1967, a development plan was done, and that's why we're here today amending this development plan to reflect what's out there. So, but he did not get a building permit originally. I'm not sure if he, I guess he wasn't aware. I didn't enter discussions with him on that. But he is aware now and he's working with building inspection to go through the proper processes, and one of which is amending the development plan. Are there additional questions, Mr. Owen? Matt, I know the permitting is not – you got involved after that, so I can't hold you to that. Isn't the building under roof already, though? No. It is nothing but a frame. I was out there yesterday, and I could swear that, you know, you had – they had metal siding on it, and it was under roof. Well, I haven't been out there unless he's had it since I was there. It was not. I mean, there are other buildings under roof, but as far as I know, it's a frame. Okay. All right. My concern is, what is that, a 40 by 100 foot building that you're putting in? Or that he's putting in? Let me look at the dimension. Or 40 by 80 or something? 80 by 40. Okay. So you've got a new building that's going to create runoff as opposed to just ground surface water. Well, and what I was saying earlier, that area was paved before, and it had a shed of some type there. I haven't seen the original shed. It's all been removed. So he's basically putting this building where the other shed and paved area existed. Yeah, having traveled up and down New Circle Road in the past and so forth, and subsequently just going out there, I used to rent equipment out of that place, but it all drains down the driveway to New Circle Road and so forth. I'm just wondering, and I don't know, maybe it's engineering's, you know, them to decide, but shouldn't we be trying to improve the situation with some sort of stormwater retention? Well, that's, I mean, that is a possibility. Typically, the requirements are if it's an existing facility, as long as you're not increasing, they haven't made us add detention in the past. Hillard, can you add anything to this? Matt's correct. If he can document that he's not increasing the impervious area out there, then stormwater detention wouldn't necessarily be required by the stormwater manual. I'm not aware, offhand, I'm not aware of any particular drainage problems with that property. I know there's a fairly large storm sewer that crosses New Circle Road in that location. I think there's a 36-inch pipe. Maybe Matt can confirm that. But yeah, I mean, we'll be looking to Matt to document the conditions there with the impervious areas as part of his submittal tools. Have there ever been any stormwater studies done and associated with development plans? With this property or? Well, any, you know, this property, any property, I'm sure it hadn't happened with this property, but any property, is there any need for something like that? Well, we typically do it in conjunction with the construction plans when we would receive the drainage report and that documentation. We could certainly ask for that as part of the approval of the development plan. that documentation that Matt described prior to certification. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Ms. Copeland. Yes, Mr. Newman. If you look at the soil as a sponge, and you're depending on the soil to take up the runoff, and the septic system is also percolating, is that not a conflict? I mean, can you do, assuming that it's all done up in the purple area, I would think that the septic system is up there and that's where the runoff is. So we aren't talking about putting in a washing drying facility. It's going to have a lot of septic system use. But isn't that a problem to say that we've got all that runoff and the septic system field is right there? I'm not sure about the location of the septic system. I believe Matt had indicated that it was closer to New Circle Road. This area right in here, it's actually on the state right of way, but that's where the septic field is located. And I would add that it's been there for 44 years. Okay, well that's not a problem. This is an entertaining site. This is an entertaining site. Are there other questions? Thank you very much. Yes. Madam Chairman, may I speak, please? Yes, you may. My name is Captain Bowen. I'm with Lexington Fire Department. I have some concerns about access. I thought I heard Matt say that it was just going to be gravel. They weren't going to pave it. I have concerns about our fire truck being able to get up there and turn around, and then the egress coming out of there as well, if that's gravel. That could probably present some problems for us if it's a hilly area. I'll point out that the area to the south of the entrance is the gravel area. everything in front of these buildings and north is paved. Does that answer your question? Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. Are there other questions? There's no one left in the audience to make any comments, so we will turn this over to the commission for any discussion or for a motion. Mr. Owens? First of all, I've still got a little bit of concern in regards to stormwater here, and if we're doing something, providing some new construction on it, I think we should do what we can to improve the situation. in all actuality I'm good I'm okay with everything else I'm just wondering and Mr. Newman said that a study could be done could that be attached to engineering sign off as far as a storm water study I really don't want to hold up Matt's situation, I'm sure Matt doesn't either, can that be attached to engineering's sign off as far as, you know, with the recommendation of a storm water study? Could you comment on that, please? Yeah, I think we could. In terms of a study, it could be simply documenting the impervious area and documenting that you're not increasing that impervious. Is that what you had in mind as far as a study? I mean, it could be just that simple. If nothing else, you got documented on the plan. Documented on the plan or to me prior to signing off on it? What would create the difference? Can staff answer that? If it's documented on the plan as far as stormwater study or is that going to hold things up? I think it's a matter of how quickly the applicant can provide the information to engineering. They have a chance to review it and approve it and then forward it on the plan for our review. Matt? I mean, wouldn't the simplest answer to be storm water to the approval of engineering? And then engineering is a sign-off on the development plan. You know, yes, Matt. I would agree with that. But to me, the way everything is worded, that's just the minimal that can be done. And, you know, once again, my concern is if we're, you know, I'm just concerned that we're adding to this and noting where the runoff all goes down the driveway to New Circle Road, knowing that there's been a problem there in the past. I'm just trying to help the situation as much as anything. But I would say at this point, if you can document it to the engineer and satisfaction, I'll let it go. We can do that. Okay. Ms. Copeland, did you? Yes. Matt, is it possible with the slope there to take water from the purple area and put it down here in the lower triangle and just let it sheet flow in there? So it's not jumping out straight on U-Circle Road down the hill? I guess the problem is everything you see on there is an existing condition. It's not proposed, so we really can't be regrading the parking lot because the buildings, they're already there. So the pavement has to meet the building so you can drive in the garages, go in the doors. It's all existing. And for me to, I mean, I can make it worse if I start getting in there and monkeying around with the grades. Okay. Are there other questions? Mr. Cravens. I guess maybe you could maybe direct the downspouts a certain way because, you know, a flat parking lot is different than when you put a building on and you force all that same water into four or five spots that it comes out with a point discharge more than if it's just a flat area. Well, we can take the downspouts, pipe them to around the buildings and kind of get the water flowing around the perimeter. But I can't change any of the other buildings that are existing. Other questions? Do I hear a motion? Madam Chairman, I'll move for approval of the DP 2011-6 level. And Hart Realty Company, with the, I guess now, 13 conditions, with the 13 reading denote Board of Health approval of septic system or documentation of sanitary sewer service must be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. And I simply state that, Matt, I appreciate working with engineering as much as possible on this. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ms. Phillips. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think the next item of business is the performance bonds and letters of credit. I believe you'll find those in your packet. Yes, and the Chair will entertain a motion for release. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of the release and call of bonds as stated on the memorandum dated February 10, 2011. I have a motion by Mr. Owens. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Cravens. Any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Is there any item that any Commission member would like to bring before the Commission at this time? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to go into closed session. The Department of Law has requested that the commission convene a closed session to discuss a matter of pending litigation. So I have a motion from Mr. Wilson. Second from Mr. Cravens. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.