# Planning Commission Meeting - March 10, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 10, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1912 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1912?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-03-10 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 31,739 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 March 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 included eight agenda items covering routine business and planning matters. The Commission took 15 votes during the session and heard 3 public comments from audience members. All substantive agenda items—including approval of minutes, postponements or withdrawals, land subdivision items, and commission items—were approved, while staff items, audience items, and next meeting dates were presented for informational purposes. ## Attendance **Present:** - Carolyn Richardson - Mike Cravens - Marie Copeland - Mike Owens - William Wilson - Carla Blanton - Ed Holmes **Absent:** - Patrick Brewer - Derek Paulsen - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Eunice Beatty **Late:** None reported. ## Votes and Decisions All motions during this meeting passed by voice vote with no opposition. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 00:05:06] The minutes from the February 10, 2011 meeting were approved. Motion by William Wilson, seconded by Mike Owens. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. **Postponements to March 24, 2011** [timestamps: 00:06:42, 00:07:14, 00:08:20, 00:43:29] Four items were postponed to March 24, 2011: - Plan 2005-196F: Sharkey Property Unit 2-B (Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens) - DP 2010-23: Sharkey Property Unit 2-B (Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens) - DP 2011-18: James Motor Co. & Kathryn M. McBrazier Property (Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by William Wilson) - Plan 2010-131P: Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property (Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by William Wilson) All four postponements passed 6-0. **Withdrawal and Additional Postponement** [timestamps: 00:08:53, 01:10:59] DP 2006-65: Blackford Property, Phases 1 & 2 was withdrawn (Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens). Vote: 6-0. Plan 2011-26F: Forest Park Addition was postponed to March 24, 2011 (Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by William Wilson). Vote: 6-0. **Postponement to April 14, 2011** [timestamp: 00:10:32] Plan 2011-22F: Denton Farms, Inc., Unit 1-F was postponed to April 14, 2011 (Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Mike Owens). Vote: 6-0. **Consent Agenda Approval** [timestamp: 00:15:07] The following items were approved as a consent agenda: Plan 2011-23F, 2011-24F, 2011-25F, 2011-26F, 2011-33F, and DP 2011-17 (Motion by Ed Holmes, seconded by Mike Owens). Vote: 6-0. **Development Plan Approvals** [timestamps: 03:19:48, 03:45:23] DP 2011-16: Mark Acre Properties, LLC was approved with 17 conditions (Motion by Ed Holmes, seconded by Mike Owens). Vote: 6-0. DP 2011-19: Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 12A was approved with 11 conditions (Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Ed Holmes). Vote: 6-0. **Design Guidelines Recommendation** [timestamp: 03:22:03] NPE 2011-1: Amendment to Newtown Pike Design Guidelines was recommended for approval to Urban County Council with conditions (Motion by Marie Copeland, seconded by Mike Owens). Vote: 6-0. **Bond Release and Public Facilities Request** [timestamps: 03:46:27, 04:04:11] Release and call of bonds for Chris King was approved (Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens). Vote: 6-0. PFR 2011-2: Fayette County Public Schools Renovation and Expansion was approved with three conditions (Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Ed Holmes). Vote: 6-0. **Administrative Action** [timestamp: 04:05:20] The work session scheduled for March 31, 2011 was cancelled (Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carla Blanton). Vote: 6-0. ## Public Comment Three speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Opposition to Plan 2011-26F: Forest Park Addition** Harck Pickett [timestamp: 0:57:53] expressed opposition to Plan 2011-26F: Forest Park Addition. He raised concerns about increased stormwater runoff and strain on existing infrastructure. Pickett noted that the area already experiences frequent basement flooding and requested greater clarity regarding the proposed development, particularly regarding potential increased density and student housing in an already highly dense residential area. Kirsten Bright [timestamp: 1:00:36] also opposed Plan 2011-26F: Forest Park Addition. As a homeowner, she voiced concerns about neighborhood degradation resulting from cheap student housing development. She cited infrastructure strain and frequent basement flooding as existing problems that would be exacerbated by the project, and expressed concern about increased density in the area. **Support for DP 2011-16: Mark Acre Properties** Richard V. Murphy [timestamp: 2:46:00] spoke in support of DP 2011-16: Mark Acre Properties as a representative of the applicant. He expressed gratitude to staff and the community for their collaboration throughout the process. Murphy emphasized that the project complies with applicable design standards and stated that it would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. ## Contested Items Three items generated significant disagreement during the March 10, 2011 meeting: **Plan 2010-131P: Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property** Commission members engaged in heated discussion over this plan, raising concerns about cemetery impacts and excavation issues. A waiver to street geometrics was needed to move forward. Rather than reach a decision, the Commission postponed the plan to allow for further review and expert testimony on the contested matters. **Plan 2011-26F: Forest Park Addition** This lot split proposal faced strong community opposition. Residents expressed concerns about stormwater runoff, infrastructure strain, and increased density in the area. The plan encountered multiple failed votes before ultimately being postponed, indicating the Commission could not reach consensus on approval. **DP 2011-16: Mark Acre Properties** The Commission was divided on whether to approve this development plan. The disagreement centered on design standards and the potential for student housing at the site. Following a second postponement, the plan was ultimately approved, though the split vote reflected ongoing concerns among Commission members about the proposal's merits. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:31 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building. [timestamp: 00:00] Carolyn Richardson presided over the opening of the meeting. ## Approval of Minutes The meeting proceeded to approve the minutes from the February 10, 2011, meeting. [timestamp: 00:05:06] Key speakers on this agenda item included William Wilson and Mike Owens. The minutes were approved by voice vote. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 06:42] Several plans were postponed or withdrawn at the request of applicants during this agenda item. The key speakers addressing this matter were Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, William Wilson, and Rory Kahly. All motions related to the postponements or withdrawals were approved by voice vote. ## Land Subdivision Items The Commission reviewed and approved several consent agenda items related to land subdivisions during this portion of the meeting. [timestamp: 0:11:43] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Commission members Bill Sallee, Tom Martin, Rory Kahly, Howard Cruse, Harck Pickett, and Kirsten Bright. **Items Reviewed** Two major subdivision plans were the focus of discussion: - **Plan 2010-131P** — postponed following public and commission discussion - **Plan 2011-26F** — postponed following public and commission discussion **Concerns Raised** The postponement of these two plans resulted from substantive concerns raised during the meeting: - Cemetery impacts were identified as a key issue requiring further consideration - Neighborhood concerns were also presented and discussed by the Commission **Outcome** While several consent agenda items were approved, the two major plans (2010-131P and 2011-26F) were postponed rather than approved, indicating the Commission determined additional review and discussion of the cemetery and neighborhood impact issues was necessary before moving forward with these subdivisions. ## Commission Items The Commission reviewed and approved a Public Facility Review for the renovation and expansion of three Fayette County Public Schools. [timestamp: 3:47:30] Key participants in this discussion included Barb Rackers, Maureen Peters, Kevin Warner, Katie Pentecoff, Jason Dunn, and Paul Ochenkoski. The Commission also addressed a motion to cancel a scheduled work session. The agenda item concluded with an approval outcome. ## Staff Items Staff announced an upcoming APA training session focused on mitigating hazards through planning. Bill Sallee presented this informational item [timestamp: 4:05:51]. The session was presented as an educational opportunity for staff development in the area of hazard mitigation planning strategies. ## Audience Items During this portion of the meeting, citizens were invited to speak on matters of interest to the public. However, no formal items were presented for discussion during this time. ## Next Meeting Dates Next meeting dates were announced during this agenda item. The announcement included information about an upcoming work session, a zoning public hearing, and a technical committee meeting. [timestamp: 0:00:00] This was an informational item with no debate or concerns raised. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of minutes from February 10, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Postponement of Plan 2005-196F: Sharkey Property Unit 2-B to March 24, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Postponement of DP 2010-23: Sharkey Property Unit 2-B to March 24, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Postponement of DP 2011-18: James Motor Co. & Kathryn M. McBrazier Property to March 24, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Withdrawal of DP 2006-65: Blackford Property, Phases 1 & 2 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Postponement of Plan 2011-22F: Denton Farms, Inc., Unit 1-F to April 14, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items (Plan 2011-23F, 2011-24F, 2011-25F, 2011-26F, 2011-33F, DP 2011-17) - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Postponement of Plan 2010-131P: Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property to March 24, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Postponement of Plan 2011-26F: Forest Park Addition to March 24, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of DP 2011-16: Mark Acre Properties, LLC - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Recommendation to Urban County Council to approve NPE 2011-1: Amendment to Newtown Pike Design Guidelines - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of DP 2011-19: Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 12A - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of release and call of bonds for Chris King - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of PFR 2011-2: Fayette County Public Schools Renovation and Expansion - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Cancellation of work session on March 31, 2011 --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. 2011 meeting. The Chair, are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion for approval or disapproval. I'm sorry. I move for approval. Motion's been made to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2011 meeting. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our agenda is postponements or withdrawals. Do we have any at this time? Madam Chair, members of the Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I've got several of them for you. On page 3, bottom of that page, item F, Plan 2005-196F, Sharkey Property Unit 2B, request a two-month postponement to the March 24th meeting. Two months or two weeks? Oh. Sorry. Mr. Salley, is that the correct date? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. March the 24th. All right. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to this postponement? On the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion to postpone for two weeks Plan 2005-196F, Sharkey Property Unit 2B. Madam Chair, I'll move the postponement of Plan 2005-196F until March 24, 2011. Motion is made by Mr. Owens. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Cravens. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. And on page 6, item F is the corresponding DP. It's DP 2010-23, Sharkey Property Unit 2B. Request a two-week postponement to March 24th on this as well. Any objections to this postponement? Is anyone on the commission? Actually, if not, I'll entertain a motion to postpone this for two weeks to a March 24th meeting. I hear a motion. Madam Chair, I'll move to postpone DP 2010-23 until March 24th, 2011. I have a motion by Mr. Owens. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Cravens. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Staying on page six, at the top of page, item D, DP 2011-18, James Motor Company and Catherine McBrayer property, request a two-week postponement to March 24th. Any objections? Hear a motion from the Commission? Madam Chairman, move postponement of DP 2011-18, James Motor Company, for two weeks to March 24th. Do I hear a second? Motion made by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And on page four, under development plans, DP 2006-65 Blackford property, phases one and two, we would request a withdrawal of this plan. Okay. Any objections? Do I hear a motion from the committee to accept withdrawal for BP 2006-65 Blackford Property, Phase 1 and 2? Madam Chair, I'll move for withdrawal of Plan 2006-65 Blackford Properties. Is there a second? Motion by Mr. Owens, second by Mr. Cravens for withdrawal of DP 2006-65. Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Are you sure you're through? Yes. Are there other withdrawals or postponements? Madam Chairman, staff has one to bring to your attention. Okay. On page two of your agenda, under final subdivision plans, item A, plan 2011-22F, Denton Farms Incorporated, Unit 1F amended for property located at 3936 and 3985 Tatton Park. We have received a written request by the applicant to postpone that for one month. And the date would be? April 14th. April 14th. Okay. Thank you very much. So I hear a motion for postponement for the Plan 2011-22F, Denton Farms, Unit 1F, amended for one-month postponement to April 14th. I hear a motion. Madam Chairman, move postponement of Plan 2011-22F Denton Farms until April 14th. I hear a second. Second. Motion is made by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Owens. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Are there any other withdrawals or postponements? In that case, we'll move to the consent agenda. Mr. Talley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are several items on your meeting agenda remaining that do qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda. The first appears on page 2, item B, plan 2011-23F. This is an amended final record plat for Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 9, for property located at 125 Louie Place. The next item on your meeting agenda, item C, on page 2, is also on your consent agenda, plan 2011-24F, an amended final record plat for the LFUCG property and the Joyce Fields property. This property is located at 115 Cisco Road. Item D on page 3 of your agenda is also on the consent agenda. That is Plan 2011-25F, Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 12, amended. This is for property located on Pink Pigeon Parkway and Vendor Way. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 3, item E, is on your consent agenda. However, the staff understands that there are citizens here that wish this item to be discussed, and also we have received three letters of opposition for that item. That is Plan 2011-26F, Forest Park Edition, amended. On page 4, item G of your meeting agenda, this item also is on your consent agenda. Plan 2011-33F, an amended final record plat for Brighton East Townhomes, lots 1 through 12, for property located at 3704 through 3725 St. Andrews Walk. There is also one development plan that qualifies for consideration on your consent agenda. It is on page 5 of your meeting agenda, item C, amendment number 8 to the final development plan, DP 2011-17 for Hamburg Place Mall, Unit 1, Parcel 3. This involves property at 2309 Sir Barton Way. At this time, unless any commission member, any applicant, or anyone in the audience wishes any items to be pulled from your consent agenda, the commission can consider approval of these since your subdivision committee has recommended conditional approval of all of these items without discussion. Thank you. Okay. At this time, Ms. Copeland, the one you wish to pull. Yes, I have questions about Plan 2011-33F Brighton East Town Homes, Lots 1 and 2 amended. In subdivision committee meeting, there was a question as to whether the cleanup conditions could be ready and cleaned up. Would you like to hear this? Would you like to pull this to hear it? No, I first want to know if it's just been cleaned up and can stay on the consent agenda. Yes, ma'am. We did receive a revision of that plan. Okay, great. Thank you. No, I do not want to pull. All right. Are there others, commission members, any petitioner or a member of the audience who would like to hear one of these? Hi, my name is Hart Pickett, 228 Forest Park Road. I wanted to request that Plan 2011-26F be removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Is there anyone else in the audience? Okay. Seeing or hearing none, we'll have a motion for the Consent Agenda, pulling item 2011-26F. Do I hear a motion to that? Well, pulling item F. Is there a second? Second. Motion is made by Mr. Holmes, second by Mr. Owens. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. All right. Thank you very much. At this time, we'll give the staff an opportunity to set up. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. I'm going to go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you. The first plan for full discussion appears on the first page of your agenda. This is Plan 2010-131P, an amended preliminary subdivision plan for the Hillenmeyer property and DWS property, a portion of that property. These properties have three addresses, 2551 Leestown Road, 2801 Sandersville Road, and 803 Greendale Road. I'd like to first orient you to the property using an arrow photograph. The subject property for this preliminary subdivision plan is east of Greendale Road and north of Sandersville Road. Sandersville Road and Greendale have a four-way stop just to the south of this photograph, and the subject property is currently vacant. It was formerly a part of the Hill and Meyer Nursery operation, as the photo indicates, with all the tree and other plantings. This subdivision plan is here, and it is immediately north of a very small light industrial area where Sandersville Road currently stubs into the south border of the subject property. This cul-de-sac is Green Spring Court, and that feature is shown on this plan and will be also part of a waiver request that is part of this proposal. This is focusing in a little bit more on this stub street of Sandersville Road into the subject property. We have a circle diagram which indicates the general vicinity of a cemetery. This was first discovered when the plan was filed late last year, and the petitioner and the staff have been discussing the treatment of this cemetery. As you may recall, within the last year and a half or so, we have new zoning regulations regarding setbacks from existing and known cemetery areas. Finally, a little closer up area of that last photo, and there does appear to be some photographic evidence of some grave sites in that general area. Now to orient you to the preliminary subdivision plan, the property is on the west side of Greendale Road, The Sandersville Road is, I mentioned, just south of this property and currently stubs at this point into the subject property. The future extension of Citation Boulevard really forms the western portion of this property. There is a right-of-way planned for that future connection. You may also remember in the last month or two on your subdivision committee, we did review an amended plan for Hill and Meyer West, the portion of the property to the west of this location. The cemetery that we showed you in the photo is identified on this plan, and in yellow there is an area that shows a 50-foot no disturbance perimeter around that cemetery. What has delayed this plan is the alignment of Sandersville Road to where it can be connected to Hill and Meyer West and to the Stub Street and yet provide the spacing around the existing cemetery. This plan was submitted to us on the 9th of this month and there was a prior submission as well that indicated that this road alignment could be obtained, preserving the buffer area around the cemetery. This plan is for 218 single family lots, although the property is zoned R3, planned neighborhood residential zone. All of the development on this plan is for single family detached housing. Sandersville is the only collector street proposed. Of course, it will have frontage on Greendale and a new access point proposed to Greendale Road with a local street at this location. All of the other streets proposed in this development are local street sections. There are also three detention basins through the center of the property, one on either side of the new collector street and, again, on either side of a local street connection at this point as well. The staff has prepared a revised recommendation to you on the TAN sheet. I would like to go over some of the conditions. Conditions number eight and nine can be deleted from those appearing on your agenda with this new revision. Those items have been taken care of. Under what is listed on your agenda as condition 10, now number eight, Transportation Department approval of the new access to Greendale Road will still be required. So in essence, that condition, along with the first seven, will still function as sign-off type of conditions should you decide to approve this plan today. Condition number nine and ten, new conditions, are related, and they are related to tree preservation in the vicinity of the cemetery. As you saw from the photo on the southern property line, there are a number of trees existing there, including in the areas surrounding the cemetery. This plan does not propose any tree preservation, yet the staff believes it's probably important to provide it at least in the area surrounding the no disturbance area near the cemetery. Also, since we have an industrial use immediately to the south, it makes sense to the staff that also the trees along the tree line probably should also be preserved. In essence, zone-to-zone screening, should those trees be removed, would be nowhere near as good a landscape buffer as those existing trees. So for that condition, we would hope that tree protection areas could be denoted also in the no disturbance area around the cemetery. There is a waiver proposed with this preliminary subdivision plan. Mr. Martin has prepared a staff report on that. And we've identified those two waiver points on this plan. One involves the radius and the other geometry of this curve so that the cemetery can be missed by Sandersville. And second, the angle of this intersection with the curve beginning farther to the east on Sandersville also technically requires a waiver. There is one other issue listed on the revised report. Lot 22 proposed is very close to the future Citation Boulevard. It is denoted as a sinkhole. We have had conversation as a staff with the engineer, and we have an agreement verbally of how that area would be treated. It's basically going to be explored as the subdivision is developed. Any sinkhole-related non-buildable areas that would be required after that exploration is done would ordinarily be denoted on the final record plat. We think a simple note to that effect would meet that condition for Lot 22. This is a preliminary subdivision plan, so certainly the staff understands that this lotting pattern can be adjusted at the time that you would review a final subdivision plan for this property. At this point, that concludes my part of the presentation. Mr. Martin has a waiver report to share with you, and then probably after that, we'll be glad to answer any questions from the Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Mr. Martin? Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, The waiver report that you have before you today should be located at your seats. It is, of course, on white paper entitled Findings for the Petition for the Waiver associated with this plan. You have seen Mr. Sally's orientation to this plan for you. And, again, the subject of the waiver is Sandersville Road. It is this curve right through here in order to miss the cemetery. And there is a waiver at this location, again, with Green Spring cul-de-sac. And it is dictated by the need to create the intersection here based off the existing road. So with this existing point and with this existing point associated with Citation Boulevard, with the cemetery here. The challenge that they had was, of course, was to extend this road. We normally, in the subregs, require a 500-foot radius, a much more gradual curve. At 325 feet, it is steeper, as you can see, but we have discussed it with traffic engineering. We agree that this is quite a challenge that they had to meet here, and you will see that we have recommended approval of the waiver. Now, there is one item of concern to the staff. These two lots that are proposed right here, they don't meet the recommended ratio of depth to width in our subdivision regulations. Furthermore, there is a section that requires that all lots be provided safe pedestrian and vehicular access. You'll see in the report that we emphasized vehicular. That is our concern at this location. Again, because of the steepness of this curve, the site distances are affected, so we have some concern about safe access to these two lots. We do believe that, similar to the sinkhole question, that access to these lots can be resolved at the time of the final record plat. And again, as I stated previously, staff is recommending approval of the waiver. If you have any questions. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Martin. Does anyone on the commission have a question? Mr. Owens. Yeah. Mr. Martin, the two lots that you just discussed, you're thinking that the access can be resolved at the time of final development? For instance, Mr. Owens, one idea that we have discussed as a possible way to resolve that vehicular issue, vehicular safety, a shared driveway across the frontage, the way we've done in some of the expansion areas, may be a very easy way where folks would have a choice of which direction to go, depending on whether they're going east or west on Sandersville. Just one example, but those are the types of issues we expect to review at the final point. Thank you. Are there other questions? Not. Thank you, gentlemen. Petitioner? Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with the EA Partners. We're in agreement with the revised conditions and request approval. Thank you very much. Other questions? The petitioner? Mr. Owens? Mr. Cayley, first of all, Thanks for working on this and providing the, what however you would call it, to circumvent around the cemetery. I appreciate that. My question is to date, have there been any excavation on this property? Grading, excavation? No. No? No, we need this approved before we can submit our construction plans. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to take a moment. I've got a few pictures I would like to show. Ms. Rackers has them over here. It's concerning. These are all pictures of the cemetery. First of all, obviously this is a picture of the cemetery. Go ahead. The next one is just a headstone. It indicates the death of this person in 1834. Go ahead, Barbara. This is a site looking to the west with a cemetery in the middle of the picture. The stick there at the edge of the dirt is a 36-inch yardstick. Go ahead, Barbara. The next one is another picture looking back to the west. This site, I think there's another picture, but it's approximately two and a half to three feet in the bottom of the site, about seven feet long and 36 inches wide. Here's another site. I'm sorry, this is the same site that I've shown in the previous picture. The yardstick's in the back. This picture is looking to the east with the cemetery behind us. Go ahead, Barbara. Here's a third site similar, approximately 18 inches deep. Again, seven feet in length and two and a half to three feet wide. Go ahead, Barbara. Another site at the cemetery. The cemetery is just to the upper right-hand corner. This one is about two feet in width, maybe a little bit less. about 5 feet in length and again 18 inches plus deep. Here's another site that is about a foot deep on the edges. This one is about 4 1⁄2 to 5 feet wide and 7 feet long. Here's another site with similar dimensions, 4 feet wide and 7 feet long. This is a site with a cemetery in the upper right-hand corner. What appears to be more grading going on. Another site looking to the west. Yardstick again. The cemetery is directly behind the camera in this situation. And then we've seen that site once before. There's five sites of this. This is all excavation around the cemetery. If you could, Barbara, put up one of the earlier pictures with the yardstick on the edge, maybe the third or fourth picture, one of those. Just to the right of that yardstick, about four feet, there's a pin flag. Pin flags were on the outer edges where there was excavation, pretty much all the way around. To me, there's excavation there. And what really concerns me are those depression sites. So at this point, can we have any explanation as to what's taking place? Sure. Howard Cruz with Paul Holmes. When you asked the question, has there been any excavation, I tried to qualify it by saying relative to roadway construction. And my question was just simply any excavation. Well, I will explain. The excavation, as you call it, is part of the exploration that was done in order to determine the limits of the cemetery. We can't just walk out on the ground and say that this is where it is and this is where it isn't. These excavations, as you refer to them, were performed under the supervision of someone that's licensed to make those determinations. In this instance, I believe we used Mr. Troy Thompson. I can verify that if you would like. But that was part of our investigation to determine the limits. I assure you that everything that we've done is within the limits of the law in order to determine the limits of the cemetery. We weren't out there trying to dig up bodies. We just wanted to know where the graves were. Well, obviously everyone would hope not. Can you explain those depression sites? I'm sorry, but they're very similar. to coffin sites. Exactly. And that's what we were trying to determine is the orientation and location of all the graves. The pin flags that you mentioned are the sites that were actually surveyed and we have that information. I'd be happy to share it with staff. That doesn't explain the depression sites. The depressions are the areas that were excavated to determine the limits of each of the individual plots of the cemetery. In other words, the depression is a grave site. Those depressions were grave sites? I believe that's correct, yes. What's happened to them? as far as we determined the limits of the gravesite and made no further disturbance once the determination was made. I mean, this is just part of the normal investigation that we have to go through to determine the limits of the gravesite. And I apologize for not being more informed than I am, but someone else in our office handled that who's been through this. Okay, so if those depression sites are grave sites? Yeah, I believe they are. I really can't say for sure. Okay, then where are the limits going to be as far as the 50 feet? The pin flags, or are we going out farther? The grave sites determine the limits of the cemetery. That's what we have determined. I'm not sure exactly. I personally haven't gone out there and looked at this. Can't answer that question specifically right now. But we did have someone investigate, tell us what the limits were, surveyed those limits, and we will extend the boundaries beyond that. So you're saying that the 50 feet buffer area that's required is 50 feet beyond those sites? Yes. Okay. Any grave site that was found is the cemetery. My only other question is what happened to those grave sites? You're saying you didn't dig them. No, we didn't excavate the body. We have taken off the top layer of soil. That's typically how they tell the limits of the site because the soil is different. I understand that, but you've got a natural depression area. Yeah. You know, so where is the coffin? Where is the body? You know, if you didn't dig it, how did that depression area occur? Well, I didn't say we didn't dig it. I said we haven't done any roadway excavation. We did dig those as part of the normal and ordinary process of determining where those bodies are. Okay. I can appreciate that. How did you determine where to dig? We had a professional come. We knew there were headstones in certain locations. I'm no expert, but typically the bodies are aligned so that the head is to the east. They are oriented parallel and in rows. We find one, and we start probing, looking for others. If there's soft soil, we then do some minor excavation to determine the limits of each of the sites. One further question, Mr. Cruz. You said you had some expert. Will you be able to provide some sort of documentation from this expert and have it for us in the records? Sure, no problem. Absolutely. Okay. Could the expert come and talk to us at another meeting? I believe so, yeah. I think we can arrange that. Because I thought you did this sort of thing with sounding, where you take a rod and you sound. That's the first part of the process. But just by probing the ground, we find, as I said, soft spots. But in order to determine if it is a grave or just some other anomaly, we do this excavation of just the surface material. I think Mr. Owens mentioned that typically they were 18 inches deep or so, as I recall. 18 to 2 feet deep, yeah. Yeah, so all we did is. From the excavated site. We just basically got rid of the topsoil so we could tell where the ground had been disturbed and where it hadn't to define the limits of each plot, each gravesite. As part of your plan, do you anticipate restoring the cemetery or doing improvements to it, or what do you do at that point? We, you know, really we haven't discussed it, Rory and I did, particularly before the meeting. I'm not sure what our obligations are, but we will absolutely fulfill those obligations. I know that we are required to fence it. We were discussing whether or not it would be part of a greenway or it would be an HOA parcel. Either way, somebody will be responsible for maintenance of it. Typically, the family shows some interest and maintains. within the confines. But after you do your excavation, then do you cover the site back up or do you place the headstone? I would think we would cover the graves back up, yes. I've got no problem in making that commitment. As far as moving the headstones, I don't think that's something that we're really allowed to do. I didn't know if you moved the headstones when you do your excavation or search. No, we didn't move the headstones to do the excavation. Are there other questions? Yes, Mr. Cruz, were there names found, recognizable names on the headstones? On some of the headstones, yes. I believe it's the Tain family, you recall, Bill? I don't recall the name. I do recall the family. We have been in contact with one of the relatives. She has expressed an interest in what we're doing, and that's part of the reason we're here now, is to make this accommodation so that the cemetery is not disturbed. How do you spell pain? I believe it's P-A-Y-N-E. I'd be happy to get you some more information. How many graves do you think are there? Again, you've kind of caught me flat-footed here. Okay. I don't really know. There's not 100. There's probably somewhere in the order of 20 would be my guess right now. This expert is local? Yes. So he could come and talk to us if we postpone this? Sure. Okay. Are there other questions from Ms. Charles? Thank you, Mr. Cruz. You know, to me, you know, I appreciate the answers. I wish I'd heard them beforehand. If you're agreeable for a postponement to let this take place, it would make everybody, particularly me, very comfortable. For the two weeks? Sure. We could do the two weeks? Sure. If that's the case, I'll go ahead and move for postponement of this for two weeks until March 24th. No problem. Thank you. I have a motion and a second by Mr. Wilson for postponement. Clarification. At that point, the expert will then be here to provide information. That's why we're postponing. That's what I need. I guess I need to get a definition or an outline or what do you want me to have prepared. Again, I apologize for not being prepared. Yeah, whoever your professional expert was that did the site work in relation to the cemetery, have him here to speak to us so that he can provide something in writing to the staff for record as well. Okay. Thank you, sir. Again, I apologize if this issue had been raised in the committee, so I guess I could have been a little bit more prepared. I apologize. So you understand what you're going to bring back to us? I believe I'm just going to bring the expert and let him talk. Ms. Copeland? Mr. Cruz, could we also have the resolved buildable area on Lot 22 language worked out so we could clean that up? And also, could he bring photographs, his own photographs? It's the sinkhole lot. We can just clean the whole thing up. Sure. We did an extensive sinkhole investigation of this property prior to purchase, and I believe I've supplied those reports to staff. This plan's been amended three times, to my knowledge. So, sure, I mean, I've got the report. They're probably six years old now. Okay. I'd be happy to do that as well. Are there other questions? If not, there is a motion on the floor. And with a second, is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion to postpone for two weeks, please vote electronically. Can we do that? Okay. Motion carries. So we will see you back in two weeks. Thank you very much. Next item. Thank you. Ms. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 3, item E, plan 2011-26F, Forest Park Edition. And at this time, before I start my presentation, I'm going to circulate the emails that we did receive. The record plat that you see before you is a lot, a corner lot, located over at the intersection of Elizabeth Street and Forest Park. This particular area is located to the south of Waller Avenue, just a short distance along Elizabeth Street here. As I said, it is a corner lot. Frontage is here on Forest and as Elizabeth. The proposal that you see is to subdivide the back end of the lot. This is a photograph of the property. Again, you can see Forest Park is in the lower part of the photograph. Elizabeth Street runs diagonally to the top of the photograph. You can see the existing house as it fronts on Forest Park, and to the rear you can see a garage, an accessory structure, along with a driveway, and that is the area that will be subdivided and create the new lot. The proposal, if the property is zoned R1C, the lot that they are proposing to create meets the 8,000 square foot requirement of the R1C zone. It slightly exceeds the 60 foot minimum frontage requirement. They have 69, just over 69 feet of frontage proposed here. You can see there is the required 30-foot building line. The remnant piece of property is over 12,000. In fact, it's 12,499 square feet of lot is going to remain here. The staff in your subdivision committee had reviewed this and recommended approval subject to standard sign off conditions. We have handed out a revised sheet and you will find some revised conditions on this property. The engineer did meet the cleanup conditions that had been imposed on this lot. What remains are six sign-off conditions and then a seventh, which is to note any proposed and existing easements. One important aspect of proposed easements we would like to show you today is, as this house is built out here, the sanitary sewer is in Forest Park. It will be necessary for the lateral to come through this lot to reach the sewer, so it will be necessary for an easement to be established for a lateral through this property. That is not particularly unusual circumstance in our community. The one interesting aspect about this property is that as it fronts on Forest Park, and as you saw in the photograph, a median starts in this area along Forest Park. The cross section in this area, which we discovered was accurate and matched historic information, has the sidewalk and the utility easement outside of the right-of-way. That's a rare occurrence. The Planning Commission sees that most often when there's a cul-de-sac, and because of that, it's necessary to place that outside of the normal right-of-way. What we do in that instance is establish a passageway easement. You can see that that has been denoted here. The language has been added to the plat to indicate that. So this area that was the sidewalk and utility strip that was outside of the right-of-way is now within an easement. And within that easement, the Lexington-Devett Urban County government has primacy, and that's an important aspect of that particular easement and why we have them established in these circumstances. There was one other issue. When we receive lot splits, quite often, although on a normal record plat, we don't require them to denote where the existing structures and that sort of thing, are, we do ask that they verify that they can meet the required setbacks on the remaining lot where the structures do in fact exist. And you can see from this exhibit that there is an 18-foot rear yard setback on what will be the original lot, the lot that fronts on Forest Park. And that 18 feet does in fact exceed the 10-foot minimum rear yard setback in that zone. And again, you can see your revised handout. As I said before, the surveyor has addressed the cleanup conditions. All that remains are primarily sign-off conditions. This is an R1C lot. It does in fact meet the requirements of the R1C zone. Your subdivision committee recommended approval, and with the revised handout, your staff also recommends approval. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to turn this over. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Owens. I saw this the other day, but I just noticed it now. I asked about the rear yard setback earlier. With this present house on a corner, I would say the front has a front yard setback on Forest Park. It has two front yard setbacks, each front. Park and Elizabeth Street. So that outline, it looks like it's within a foot of the road. Yes, sir. It is an existing non-conforming situation that predates our regulations. Thank you. Are there other? Ms. Copeland? Yes. Mr. Martin, could you show us your aerial photograph so we can get a look at? It doesn't go up any higher because I was trying to see where the other lots but the back. So the garage that exists for this house will be demolished? That is our understanding, yes, ma'am. And so we're going to do away with that. Okay. The applicant, should this be approved, would, of course, be allowed to build a single-family home on the new lot, as long as it conforms with all the requirements of the R1C zone. Are there other questions from Commission members? Not. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Petitioner. Yes, my name is Wesley Witt, and we're in agreement with all the conditions that have been imposed. Does anyone have any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Witt, the new proposed extent of the old lot, in other words, the old lot is going to end about where that street light is? Let's see, on the opposite side of Elizabeth Street? Uh-huh. You know, it's kind of hard to tell. I think that is correct. What you're seeing is a shadow, it looks to me like. Yeah, the shadow of the street light. If you just took it and went down that faint white line, that's probably where the lot is going to end. I'd say that would be close. So it's going to be a small lot for that area. It will be smaller than the others, that is correct. But it does meet the requirements of the R1C zone. Okay. Other questions? Mr. Owens? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairperson, Mr. Witt, do you, Have any information as to what sort of plans or what they plan to build on the slot? The only conversation I've had with the owner was he was in the office and said he had a builder or an architect working on a set of plans for a residence. And that's all I know. Thank you very much. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this? Hi, everyone. I live on Forest Park Road. Can I have your name, please, for the record? Your name and address, please. Park Pickett, 228 Forest Park Road. Our area is, this is near the university, a pretty highly dense residential area that's been converted with residential additions. And I realize some of the things I'll talk about are outside of your purveyor control. But we have a situation where we have a lot more people living in this area than it was originally designed for. And our concern is with a subdivision of the lot that an additional structure will be put into place. It will put additional strain on runoff, stormwater, the infrastructure that already exists there. And I realize it's passed some, you know, the Urban County Engineers acceptance of drainage and stormwater. But living on that street, I can tell you in the corner of Elizabeth Street and Forest Park Road, there's a pond that develops each and every time, and I can only imagine with the loss of green space and additional runoff that that will be exacerbated. Our other concern is just obviously additional vehicles and residential, you know, density in that area of a sort that is, you know, It sounds like it barely conforms to the size of the lot, which I realize conforming is conforming. The other concern is if a single-family structure is not built there, I don't know. On the other side there on Waller Avenue is R3 zoning. And I don't know what the possibility is of that lot being converted to the adjoining lot or the abutting lot where they would be able to add an addition on and create even more dense structure. So you've received emails from several of the residents in the neighborhood that are opposed to the expansion or at least would like to have a little bit more clarity on what exactly the plans are for the area. So that is what I got. That's why we stand for it. So any questions for me? Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions? Do your basements flood? Yes, ma'am. With regularity. Yes, ma'am. Every now and then or once every 10 years? All the time. All the time. Yeah. We have had sanitary sewers replaced over the last few years. There was some improvement, but, I mean, my basement has flooded the last three times it's rained. Is it because you don't have good downspouts? No, my downspout is running 18 feet. I have the most improvised downspout system to combat the other conditions that are in my neighborhood. I have them going away from the house. Do you rent or own? Own, 10 years in the neighborhood. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Are there others in the audience who wish to speak? Hello, my name is Kirsten Bright. I live at 226 Forest Park Road, and I am a homeowner. I'm here to voice opposition to the subdividing of the lot that is currently 201 Forest Park Road. As a homeowner in the neighborhood, I'm concerned about the degradation of our community into cheap student housing. Single-family homes have been used to accommodate as many as six individuals, their cars and pets. Therefore, I feel the proposed subdividing of 201 Forest Park Road represents a strain on our already dense community. And my basement has flooded the past three times a strain as well. So that is a very real issue. Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? If not, does the staff have anything else? This time then I'll close the hearing and turn it over to the Commission. For discussion and our motion. Mr. Wilson? Madam Chair, I have a question related to it. I read the letters, but I didn't remember. Did the homeowners association in the area have an official position, or was these just members of the homeowners association? Neighborhood association, I'm sorry. Neighborhood association, I believe. Is that correct? It is the neighborhood association. How many people live in the neighborhood? I'm sorry, I should have asked this while you were up here, but I was trying to hope my colleagues remembered better than I did. How many homes are in the neighborhood? Homes? Yeah. I don't have the exact number. The neighborhood runs from Elizabeth Street all the way down Elizabeth Street to Barberry, and then all the side streets off of there to all the homes in that area. How many people do you know? How many people in your homeowners association? Oh, there's probably 40 actively on our current distribution, and then we have a lot of transient student. So are you speaking for the majority of the homeowners or for an individual? Yes, sir. I communicated this when I learned of this last week about this. I communicated it to everyone on the list, including all the residents that have participated with the homeowners association and or the neighborhood association and solicited their feedback and encouraged, you know. Thank you. Is there anyone on the commission that has any other discussion? I'm sorry. Ms. Traum. Yeah, I just have a question for Mr. Sally on the zoning issue. They indicated that, I guess, the property to the north, is that zoned R3? It looks like it's to the north, I guess. The adjacent property area. There is R3 zoning in the general area. I would have guessed it to be R2, and I'm not sure that we have a zoning map for that area with us. But if for some reason that was consolidated with an adjoining property of another zone, then either they'd have to get a zone change or they could only put what's within the current zoning on that. Am I correct? You are correct, yes, sir. They would need to seek a zone change if they wanted anything more than a single-family detached house on the lot. Thanks. Ms. Copeland. It seems to me that an email came across our desk that said that it was owned by Smart Properties, which, is that true? Here is an email. I can answer that. That is correct. Smart Properties, LLC, and the principal is Brian Reitler. That is the owner. He's in the business of student rentals? I don't know what he's in the business of. Okay. He came into our office, called one day and said this is what we want to do, and we said, well, it looks like it's a conforming lot, so it looks possible. This really concerns me because in Gladwell's book, he talks about the tipping point, and as long as Forest Park is holding on as a neighborhood, which is part of our comprehensive plan goals to uphold neighborhoods. It concerns me that maybe we're going the wrong way with a tipping point here. Thank you. Mr. Olin. Thank you. Mr. Witt, one question. In general, as far as a lot split, I don't have a problem with it. With it in the area, with what we've seen as far as student housing in the past, and with some neighborhood concerns, that's where I'm getting a little conflicted. Okay. One question, Mr. Pickett, I think, threw it out to say something in the fact, or until we get a little bit more clarity as to what's going to occur on this property. And I'd asked you a similar question beforehand. Would your applicant be in favor to postponement of this to provide some sort of plan along with it? We can do that. You can do that? Or if he wants to. Maybe make everybody a little bit more at ease? I think so. I mean, you know, those are kind of issues that would come up with code enforcement as to, you know, what they built and what size it was and so forth. But considering everybody's concern, I think that's reasonable to do. You're okay. You're okay with that? Yes. Mr. Kravitz. Yeah, I don't think we have the right to ask him to do that. We work in two dimension here, and you're asking for a design criteria. We can ask for that. And also, I mean, in fact, I bought a lot just south on Elizabeth Street about where somebody had done that and built a little, not vinyl house then, it was wood, a little wood house on it, and that's been 31 years ago, and it works. But this is a big lot by lotting standards, 69 feet wide. That's an estate lot now out in the new subdivisions. And it meets all the criteria. I don't see how we can disapprove this. We have no reason to disapprove it. Are there other comments from commission members? Chair will entertain a motion. Madam Chairman, just repeating what I had to say, with the applicant in agreement of postponement to provide us an idea, a plan as to what's going to take place, I would go with him and move for postponement of this to an appropriate date, one month? Well, I think, how soon could you hear it again? Two weeks? Two weeks? Yes, sir. Why don't we do that? Okay. But like you say, it is a conforming lot. I understand. Okay. I understand. But if it will help, we can do it. Thank you for your assistance. My motion will be for postponement of Plan 2011-26F for two weeks until March 24th. I have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Ms. Baldwin, did you have something? Well, I guess I just wanted to make sure that the commission is aware that the only thing they can do with this lot is build a single-family residence. And a single-family residence is legal if it has no more than four unrelated people living in it. So, you know, as long as the commission understands, you can't put conditions on this lot split like, well, we only want you to have two people living there or whatever. You know, I guess I just want to make sure that, like you said, you don't have any ability to dictate design on this. So I think we need to be cautious on what we do with what is a ministerial act and what is being requested meets all applicable regulations. I think that's a point well taken. And I guess my concern, and it does go back to probably being more of an enforcement issue, is to the number of people that will be occupying or living there, the trash, the cars, and those types of things. I respect their owner's right to subdivide the property. But I am concerned about the neighborhood and where it's headed. But I do feel we're sort of limited as to what we can require. Ms. Copeland. Yes, I look at it differently because regardless of what goes in there, it's going to be more runoff, more pavement, more roof area, more everything, and a disturbance of the soil. You're just asking for more water in an already inundated area that is swampy sometimes during rains if you drive through it. There is a motion on the floor to ask for postponement for Plan 2011-26F, Forest Park edition, for two weeks, which would be our March 21st meeting. Is that correct? 24th. 24th. 24th meeting. Thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Owens, a second by Mr. Wilson. Is there any further discussion? If not, let's vote electronically. We have a tie. Motion fails. Now, we need for a new motion in regard to the original request. Madam Chairman. Mr. Cravens. You know, I understand some of the comments, but we're not allowed to ask what the building is going to look like. It's not part of this scope. There's no design criteria or anything for a single-family lot. And having done several of these lot splits myself, it's not much fun while you're over there building them because the neighbors rough you up. But once it's done, it kind of disappears into the fabric of the neighborhood and you forget about it. So I'm going to move approval of Plan 2011-26F, Forest Park Edition. Motion on the floor. Is there a second? Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Holmes. Is there any discussion? Not? Then let's vote electronically, please. The motion fails. Now what do we do? The motion fails. Well, okay. You may make a point, Madam Chair. Mr. Wilson. I think in a situation of this nature where the petitioner volunteered to do this, to clarify, in my mind's eye, it would have been well worth the wait for two weeks so that that would have been a much fairer way. And I understand what our legal sources have told us, but if they're volunteering and we've asked, At least three of us have asked for at least postponement. That could make a big deal of difference as it relates to the outcome of the vote of this committee, in my opinion, maybe. Yeah, I think the only thing that could be accomplished, or that would be accomplished, would be just to inform the neighborhood of what's being built, but it would have no real bindingness to it. You know, I think the owner could say, yeah, this is what we're going to build, and then all of a sudden financing fall through and he doesn't build anything and sells a lot. You know, that's a real possibility. So by meeting with you again and showing what's going to be built, I don't know if it really would affect anything. Thank you. Ms. Bowen voted on two different motions, both having failed. So do we move on to the next agenda item at this point? Well, the commission, if someone chooses, I mean, there was no motion. It failed because it was a tie. Normally, if a motion fails because a majority votes against it, it cannot be brought up again unless it is brought up by the successful side that defeated it. In this case, because it was a tie, I think if someone wants to bring up a motion one more time and can get a second, you can try one more time to get some kind of motion. As things stand now, all motions failed and the plan was not approved. And it's done. Okay. Can I ask a question, clarifying question? Yes. If we brought up the, can we bring another motion to the table to suggest postponing it? I think if you get a second on that, I don't see any reason why you can't try it again. I mean, at some point, I think the chairperson would say, look, this has just been tie after tie. We're not going to hear it again. But I think since you've had additional discussion at this point, I don't think it's unrealistic to try to determine if you can come up with some resolution. Thank you. Is there another motion? Madam Chairperson. I'll make one more attempt at this. And to clarify as well, I understand what's been said. Hopefully, information can be brought forth that would provide a little bit more clarity. And who knows, maybe some innovative information as far as drainage, et cetera, that would make everybody more at ease here. With that said, I'll try one more time. I'll move for postponement of Plan 2011-26F, Forest Park edition, amended until March 24, 2011. I have a legal question. That's exactly the same motion that just failed. Well, it failed by a tie vote. If someone wants to second it and if the Chair is, I think that to a certain extent, I think the Chair has some discretion at this stage because it wasn't actually defeated before. It just failed because of the tie vote. Is there a second? Madam Chair, to move this process along, I will second that motion because I don't want to see it just hang there, not going either way. I do feel the applicant is entitled to his right to have the property subdivided, but I will second that motion so that we can hear it and try and get something decided on this. Okay. I have a motion and a second to postpone for two weeks to March 24, Plan 2011-26F. Mr. Cravens. Mr. Owens, just what is the purpose of the postponement? I'm going to attempt to see a plan that could be brought forth with Mr. Witt's willingness, as he's expressed, to hopefully provide ease and clarity to the situation here with what's going to take place. I mean, what do you want, a site plan or a drainage plan or what? The closest thing to a site plan that he can provide, yeah. Just a site plan. Is that going to show the footprint of the building? I could probably agree to that if it's just a site plan. Yeah, I think if the applicant is willing to do this, which they've stated they are, I am more than willing to get two weeks. I would simply suggest that he brings as much as he's willing to and can at the time. I guess I wonder, though, if we bring something and then six months down the road they want to revise the site plan, then what happens? You can do that because it's a single family lot. That's just simply going to the building inspection. So this is just an exhibit to show you basically what they want to do. A few weeks later you could sell it to me. I mean, you could do anything. I kind of like it. So you just want a site plan. No dress code, no design, no showing it's a single-family house. A side plan would work at this point in time. Okay, I can go on. Is there any other discussion? Not? Vote electronically, please. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay, next item. Madam Chair, the next item, take us just a moment to set up. It is on page 5, item B of your meeting agenda. This is a final development plan for the Mark Acre Properties, LLC. There is a related item on your agenda involving this property. That item appears on page 7, item B of your meeting agenda, a request for amendment to the Newtown Pike design guidelines. The staff is prepared to present to you today several staff reports on these two items. The first is our typical development plan presentation. We have two staff reports regarding the design guidelines of this ordinance, and the staff has also prepared a separate report on the proposal to amend the Newtown Pike ordinance requirements. We would propose that all of these be considered at one time and that the commission consider perhaps a vote on the development plan and one on the ordinance amendment. Okay. Is there any objection to hearing all of these at the same time from any commission member? That's fine. We'll do that and then do this in two motions. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 5. Item B, DP 2011-16, Mark Acre Properties, LLC amended. This is a final development plan. The property in question is located on South Broadway at the intersection with Cedar Street in this location, Pine Street in this location, and the lot also fronts on Plunkett Street. This is known commonly as the old Popeye Sign Company property. Across from this property is the Shelburne Plaza with the walking man, the large apartment complex or some commercial space located there. And the Newtown Pike extension will be down in this area. And I've still not yet learned to call it by its adopted name. To me, it's still the extension. The plan that you see before you today, as I stated, is a final development plan. There is a row of 10 townhouses in this location, a row of 10 townhouses here, fronting on South Broadway. These townhouses are a little over 2,100 square feet and three stories tall each. Parking access to the rear of these units is located here. They are proposing two-car garages in the first level of these units. In this location is a commercial building being proposed. It is a little over 9,500 square feet, according to the plan, with 16 associated parking spaces. The site statistics still reference 19, but this amended plan actually removed some spaces to accommodate the dumpsters that you see in this location. This building, again, the commercial proposal is a three-story building with a basement. They are currently stating that at least two floors of that building will be occupied by a restaurant. This plan, when submitted and reviewed, was subject to considerable review and considerable discussion by the staff as it was at your committee meetings. There are standard conditions of approval, including bike and ped, division of fire, waste management. There are several cleanup conditions, and that is to note floor area and lot coverage proposed. They've given us partial numbers, but not complete numbers in this area. It is zoned B2A. There is no limitation on lot coverage or floor area. However, we like to have those numbers provided for informational purposes so we can see the exact scope of what's being proposed. First, we have a cleanup condition number 10 to clarify the proposed square footage of the restaurant building. As I pointed out to you, it's a little over 9,500 square feet or approximately 9,500 square feet on the plan. However, they got a plus and minus figure on that, and this is a final development plan. We need to know what the square footage of that building is proposed to be. We have asked that they denote the size of the bedrooms in each townhome. An original condition and concern for staff on this plan was the number of bedrooms as well as the size. This revised plan has addressed the number of bedrooms. It will vary from three to four bedrooms per unit to a total of 80. You can see a floor plan before you. We had asked that they denote the size. There was concern, based on the potential floor plans, again, of occupancy in these units, and we wanted to be sure that we weren't creating inadvertently by approval of this plan an enforcement problem for family. As you are aware, that family definition has been clearly defined in a new ordinance, and it is limited to four people in a unit that are not related. We have several discussion items of great concern and were discussed at length on this development plan. the townhouse design standards is the first item that you see before you as a discussion item and that arose from the initial plan you may recall the Popeye stone change came to you it was approved and there was a rendering of a multi-story building multi-use building of a very, very ornate and heavily designed, a lot of variety in the architecture in that particular building. It was incorporated into the plan. It was so closely related an aspect of that plan. Staff was very concerned that that issue be addressed on this plan that you see before you today. Under Article 21 of your zoning ordinance that governs development plans, There is a provision that allows you, should you deem it necessary to amend, modify, or even disapprove a plan amendment, should it differ in scope from the original plan that you approved. This one certainly is different in scope. You see, as I stated before, instead of a multi-story, multi-use building with commercial on the first floor and residential units above, you see this proposal before you today with townhouses and a separate commercial building. We felt that because of that difference in your ability to evaluate a plan under that section of the ordinance that it would be very important to discuss and determine the nature of the townhouse design. Now, again, you can see that they have submitted elevations. These elevations are what they are proposing to a great extent to develop at this location. These elevations and their guidelines, pardon me, and the standards are going to be discussed under item 16 that you see on your agenda with the Newtown Pike design guidelines and ordinance and in fact all these issues are intimately tied together on the ultimate development of this property. That is why we have asked staff to combine two items on your agenda because it's difficult to separate them out. Should the guideline discussion go in a direction other than perhaps the applicant or staff, either one would think appropriate, you do have the jurisdiction to govern design under the development plan guidelines under that particular issue. Item 14, discuss the 20-foot access aisle. When the plan was originally submitted, the access is, as you see here, It came through. Again, garages are going to be located in the back. Staff was concerned about access all the way through the block. The primary reason for that concern was twofold. Emergency response, ambulance fire, that sort of thing. Then we were concerned also, this is a 20-foot aisle. That's fairly minimal by our standards. The other issue that was very important is the solid waste issue. How are they going to be served? And frankly, that was a very large issue and generated a tremendous amount of discussion at technical committee and with the applicant and staff. You can see that they are resolving the solid waste issue with these dumpsters here with a pedestrian access being provided for the residents of the townhouse. Our coworkers in the traffic engineering and public safety were comfortable with this access. FIRE stated they had no problems with access around the building. Traffic engineering was confident that this could work and that there could be access into the garage for the cars. There was another item of discussion that you see on your agenda, and that was the open space that you see delineated now by these green areas. When it was originally submitted, staff's concern was not compliance overall with the figure. It was more how is it distributed and would everyone, would all the residents have some access to the open space requirement? There are minimal requirements in this zone, but one of them is that there be some open space provided when there are residential units provided. You can see, again, that the applicant with this new submission has shown open space areas. And, in fact, what is not shown very clearly but is here, there's going to be decks off these units, and decks also qualify as open space. The last item on your agenda is the question of discuss compliance with the Newtown Pike design guidelines and ordinance. Mr. Emmons is going to go over that with you. He has an extensive report. With that, you will notice that you were handed out a yellow sheet. These are revised conditions on the development plan. And because the issues on the development plan, the report and the issues of compliance with the design and guideline ordinance of the Newtown Pike, we felt it would be appropriate to make the presentation of all the reports to you and then I will return after that presentation to the revisions on your development plan. And with that, before Mr. Immen starts, I need to honor his request and hand out a letter of support that I neglected to do so. The letter that I just handed out is a letter of support from the adjoining South Hill neighborhood stating their support for this project. With that, I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Emmons so he can discuss the compliance with the ordinance reports that I believe you will find in front of you in nice pink and blue colors so you can find them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Emmons? Thank you. We did try to color code our reports for ease of picking out which piece of paper we were talking about at that time. I'm happy to present to you the design standard review for this subject property. It does fall within the Newtown Pike Extension Commercial Design and Property Access Standards Ordinance, which from now on I'm just going to call that the standards whenever I refer to it. This ordinance controls certain access, controls over properties which are within the corridor. It also controls certain design aspects of that. We have passed out for you an entire copy, a black and white copy of that report, which also includes, just past the first page, the actual council ordinance in its entirety that adopted the Newtown Pike extension, adopted the standards. Yes. Since the time of your subdivision committee, at the time of your subdivision committee, the staff had distributed our first staff report on the design standards review of the subject property. At that time, the applicant learned at the technical committee meeting that their property was going to be subject to this review. They turned around and did their best effort to comply with the standards. The staff did our best effort to review what they sent us. And since their subdivision committee meeting, two things have occurred. One, as we mentioned at the subdivision committee, the staff and the applicants met. And also then the staff, the applicant has submitted revised elevations to try and address some of the concerns. The revised reports that you have here today take into account the revisions that have come in since the subdivision committee. We have the original report was just reviewing the design of the overall project with a mixture of our commercial comments and our residential comments all kind of mixed in together. For the ease of the Planning Commission's discussion, we have separated out those into two reports since your subdivision committee. The first report that I would like to go over is on the blue pages, and this is the design standards review of the commercial property. As Tom pointed out, the commercial property is proposed to be at the corner of South Broadway and Cedar Street. You can see on the development plan it's colored in red. This is the applicant's submittal of an elevation for the proposed building. At the end of this report, you can see the picture that the applicant originally submitted as the concept for a corner commercial building. And then behind that, you should have an 8.5 by 11 copy of the elevation that we have up here on the board. if you would if you would like me to I could go I do have a copy of the the subdivision committee saw this but we do have a copy of the rendering from the previous development plan and we have that available to put up on Elmo should the commission choose to see that or get into any of what was proposed on this subject property I'd like to talk now just a little bit about what is proposed on the subject property. The staff originally reviewed the picture of the building just as the applicant said, as a concept for development for the building. And as we've looked at the proposed elevations that have been submitted, we've done our report based off of the elevations that were submitted and not the picture. However, there are some differences between the two that the staff would like to point out to you right now, because it will make a difference at the end of the report when it gets to our recommendations. First thing that we notice is that the height of the floors and the ratio of the height per floor is a little bit different between the existing building that they were using as the concept in the proposed elevations. The staff feels that the existing building actually had a better proportionality of those height per floor. Essentially the third floor was a little bit higher than the rest of the other two floors. There is also appears to be on the existing building in the picture room above the room above both the windows and doors to be able to put signage on that first floor, which is important because the standards of the Newtown Pike require that any signage be limited to the first floor. As we also looked at this, and we've learned since the subdivision committee meeting with the applicant that they are proposing rooftop utilities, rooftop equipment to serve the building. And another thing that we noticed that's a difference between the existing building and the elevation is that the roof line in the picture had much more architectural detailing than this did. All of those things lead us to a conclusion that it would be a good thing to allow some additional height with this building based off of just the elevation that has been proposed that would give the applicants the latitude that they needed to be able to accommodate some of these other things as we go through there. I would like to now go through as briefly as I can each of the individual standards of the Newtown Pike Corridor. In this report, each of the standards are written in the report with our review comments and bullets. The first one being that it requires street entrance. whenever a building has a street entrance at a corner street, at a corner, then it should address both streets. We feel that the commercial building does. You can tell that they're proposing a 45-degree angle on the building so that it would have a corner entrance, which addresses the intersection. So we feel that it meets that standard. Skipping down now on page two of the report, On the build to setbacks for B1, B1 requires a build to setback and minimum frontages. Essentially what this requirement of the standards requires is that buildings be built at the property line right at the right of way. There is a guideline in this standard that allows the Planning Commission that if they are providing pedestrian-friendly enhancements, that you can move those buildings back from there. The proposed commercial building sits back about six feet from the property line, so it's very close to the sidewalk. They are proposing in that six-foot area a patio area, which would be usable as an outdoor patio for the restaurant use. Seeing that this is a B2A zone, they could also have the ability to ask the city for an outdoor cafe and extend those patio, those outdoor cafe uses into the public right-of-way if they go through the proper permitting on that. The staff definitely sees that that setback has the potential of meeting the design guideline of providing pedestrian-friendly elements with the development and thereby justifying moving the building back from the zero setback line. The staff has asked for additional information on the design and functionality of the patio area. At six feet, it just seems like it's one of those things that we're kind of wondering just how usable is the patio area going to be. So we want to look into those types of things. However, we do feel that this does meet the setback standards of B1. B2 is a little more difficult. It's a bulk plane setback, and it requires that any buildings that are over two stories or over 35 feet in height have a bulk plane setback. What that means is that the first two floors would be required to be at the zero lot line. The third floor and floors above that would have to be set back 15 feet. You can look inside the commercial design guidelines or also at the end of the white report, you can see some visual examples of what that bulk plane setback, how it could be accomplished. The applicant's proposed plan does not meet the bulk plane setbacks. That is one of the standards that they are requesting relief from, and it is discussed in detail in the report that we'll give after this, the NPE report. So the staff feels that the Planning Commission can approve this plan subject to Urban County Council granting relief of this standard, Not unlike a development plan when you have a zone change, you know, how you always have that first condition provided the Urban County Council rezones the property, otherwise it's no one void. It's the same idea with this. Not to give anything away, but the applicant has given a reasonable justification for the bulk plane setback in this. Staff is recommending approval of that one. And we feel it's appropriate to go on with that type of a condition that provided that the Urban County Council grants relief of this condition. C addresses off-street parking. There are two areas of off-street parking for this report. The first area of off-street parking is the commercial parking lot, which is located behind the building. and it's located at the corner of Cedar Street and Plunkett Street. As Tom said, it's about a 16-space parking lot. It's intended to serve just the commercial development. And we'll talk about this a little bit more on the next report, but there is a parking areas for the townhouses are intended to be in between the two townhouse buildings. The standards require a number of things for all parking lots, and they can be described as locational standards and screening requirements. A review of the standards that are in the ordinance, the proposed commercial parking lot does not meet those standards. But much like the bulk plane setback, the applicant has requested relief. The staff in that report is once again agreeing with their justification and is recommending the same solution for this item, C1, that any commission action of approval be subject to Urban County Council granting relief of that design standard. I'm going to try and skip forward and speed this up a little bit. Items D, parking structure, they're not proposing a parking structure, and this is not something that is applicable to the subject property. Bicycle parking, we believe that it can fully meet the bike parking, and we think that it should just be noted on the development plan. Accessory structures are not being proposed for the subject property, with the exception of the dumpster areas that are the dumpsters that are being proposed. There are standards for providing what type of screening of those dumpster areas would be provided within this corridor. At our meeting last Tuesday with the applicant, the applicant has verbally agreed to provide masonry walls for that screening. The two dumpsters that are in between the commercial and the residential building will serve both entities with access from both sides. There is an extensive wall that goes in between the two uses, which will serve as a screening wall, a very minor retaining wall, but it's all kind of one and the same, and there are lots of the standards that all talk about screening walls and retaining walls. the applicant has agreed to meet all of the standards in the ordinance, build them out of a, build it out of masonry or at least a masonry facade on those, which would meet the standards. Much the same, site lighting at the time of the subdivision committee, we were not sure what the applicant's plans for site lighting is. For this one in particular, the standards reference the lighting requirements that are in the mixed-use zones. So any development in here has to have lighting that's similar to the mixed-use zones, much as the Lex right across South Broadway. The applicant has agreed to comply with these standards, and the staff feels that it would be appropriate to add a note on the development plan that site lighting will comply with those standards. H, H1, and H2 are all dealing with building facades. There is a, oh, I'm sorry, I'm on page four of the blue report, if you're following along. The building facade requirements has both a two-fold articulation requirement so that you don't have just massive amount of wall without any articulation in the wall. Plus also, depending on how big that is, how much of that wall has to be at the zero setback line. The staff feels that if you agree in B1, the previous time when we were talking about setbacks, that the building is appropriately set back at six feet, then this does meet the setback requirements. It also appears to meet the articulation requirements for the length of the building. Part of the reason why there's a little bit of hesitancy in this is that the elevation drawings that were submitted to the staff didn't actually have a scale on them. The staff has done the best we could to, you know, figure out what scale they were supposed to be at and review this. We think that it will meet it. We are asking that the applicant propose, give us the calculations, and provide two-scale drawings so that that can be confirmed. This standard has not had any relief requested for it, and so it would have to be met. The staff feels that that's an appropriate condition for the subject property. As far as durable building materials, the applicant has proposed from day one to build this entire development out of brick, different types of masonry, which definitely meets the durable building materials standard. Rooftop equipment, it is, they are now proposing rooftop equipment, and as I mentioned earlier, giving some latitude and adjusting the height of the building will make it easier for the applicant to comply with the standard that the rooftop equipment be screened, both from the street. There is a design guideline that says, you know, if the streets were in such a way that the street was up high and the lot was down low and you were still going to be able to see that rooftop equipment, then it would need extra screening. So the staff feels very comfortable that this will meet that standard and is proposing development plan notes for it. Much the same with utilities, facade transparency, and signage. The landscaping, I just skipped through several of them there. I'm now on page 6 under M1 near the middle of the page. Under landscaping mix, there's not much additional landscaping that's proposed as the commercial part of this development. The standards do require a certain mixture of deciduous and coniferous landscaping. the applicant has agreed to meet with this standard. The staff is recommending additional landscaping for this area and that we see a landscaping plan and not much additional landscaping, but we want to see the areas that need to be screened, particularly around the parking lot. Finally, at the end of the report, the staff sees that necessary revisions to the development plan or the elevations. If relief is not granted from items B2 or C1, this would require major revisions of the development concept that's proposed. But assuming that relief could be granted by the Urban County Council, the staff generally sees that this proposed commercial use is and does meet the standards. It significantly meets the standards. We do feel that there will be some slight revisions to the development plan and some slight revisions to the elevations as they were presented today. But ultimately, the staff is recommending approval of this because the applicant has demonstrated significant compliance with the NPE standards and that they have given us a reasonable justification for those that they are seeking relief from the Urban County Council. This recommendation of approval is made subject to four conditions, as you can see them here. The first one being provided the Urban County Council grants relief. Second, that the Planning Commission would grant the applicant latitude to modify the height of the building within 10 feet. This will not allow a fourth story to be snuck in on this building. That would have to come back to you, but that is about 25% of the building height, and we believe that would be plenty to accomplish any of those design goals. And we have a list in D and E of notes that we would like to see added to the development plan and items that we would like to see added to the development plan, such as the landscaping areas and bicycle parking. That concludes the staff report on the commercial standards for this. You do not need to take any official action on this design report. If you agree with the staff's review of this design report, it can just be incorporated along with the conditions of approval and with any motion to approve the development plan. If you have any questions about this, I would be happy to take them now. If you would like me to go through to the townhouse, it's actually a little bit easier staff review. Are there questions from the Commission at this point? If not, yes, Ms. Copeland. How did you count the parking? Are you counting what's in the garage or just what could be outside of the garages? Are you, for the townhouse parking, I believe that they were, I believe the parking spaces were just counted inside the garage. When I said 16 parking spaces, I was actually referring to just the commercial parking lot. Well, you mentioned 50. Did I? Yeah. If I did, I misspoke. I didn't mean to. I've got both reports running through my head right now, and I apologize if I've led to any confusion. Mr. Holmes? I just have a quick comment, Ms. Simmons, on the commercial design standards. When you say the applicant meets substantial compliance with that, I guess I'm a little reluctant to amend the or I guess condition the commercial design standards because then we open the door for future amendments of those standards as well by setting a precedence. If we can quantify as much as possible when we say substantial compliance to make sure that we're not just throwing the commercial design standards out letting anyone come in then saying we set a precedence for, you know, modifying these standards because a lot of work has gone into that? I think if you look at the very next condition after that, we said the two standards that they are seeking relief from. So the, and as you read the report, everything in there would just require a minor modification to the development plan or clarification of information to meet that. I understand where you were going. And I think on this report, from the staff perspective, it's quite clear it's in agreement except B2 and C1, and that the applicant is seeking relief through the appropriate channels on that one. One other question. I got confused on your patio sidewalk. Will the patio be within the sidewalk, or will you still be able to have pedestrian accessibility to walk that sidewalk with the patio? The proposed commercial building, and I'll show you, the proposed commercial building would be at the corner with the 45-degree angle. Along the South Broadway elevation, which is this one right here, they're showing these patio doors, and on the development plan, that corresponds with a six-foot outdoor patio on the private property. so in my mind's eye I think what the applicant is proposing is the ability to open up these doors and extend their tables out kind of from the building out into that six foot patio but not within the sidewalk in the B2 zones they can petition the urban county government and ask for a permit to extend outdoor seating into the public sidewalk that there is already a process set up in the government in the downtown zones that where our Department of Public Works and Development will look at those, each permit in detail, make sure that there's no ADA problems and that it will not impede the pedestrian flow in the area. Mr. Owens. Jimmy, to follow up on that, I thought I was clear and now I'm confused. The six feet that you're talking about is, you know, you're saying that's private property. Do we have six feet plus the sidewalk? I'm sorry if I've created any confusion. The development plan proposes a six-foot area. What the staff is asking for more information from the applicant on is that we're trying to figure out in six feet how you would get all of the tables and everything like that. So right now there's only six feet there? There's only six feet. We don't know if their plans were to ask for an extension into the public right away or if they were planning on utilizing the space in the building and the patio to make it all. We just want to make sure since the patio area is the pedestrian-friendly amenities that they are providing, which justify moving the building back, We want to make sure that what they're proposing is functional. The six feet is from building to the curb. No, to the property line. Where is the property line? Not to the curb. In this instance, there is, I don't remember. How much of a sidewalk? It's about a six-foot sidewalk to the curb, so you would have about 12 feet from building to curb. Thank you. That's what I was getting after. Thank you. Are there other questions for Mr. Emmons? Now, the Chair is going to ask for just a few minutes recess before you do your next report. Absolutely. Report. The End Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. is in the pink report. It's on the townhouse. I'm going to be very brief on this one because for the most part, the applicant has submitted in a revised elevation of the townhouses, but the major differences between what was originally submitted now and then is that there's more building articulation between the units, providing more space for landscaping along South Broadway. There are differences in the window types and the designs around the doorways between the Lassa middle and this. So most of the staff comments have not significantly changed between the first report and now. There are a few that I would like to highlight. Once again, for the building setbacks on page 2 of the pink report under B2, the bulk plane setbacks, the townhouses are as proposed or three-story townhouses. They don't meet that bulk plane setback. We'll address that in the next item and report, much as we did in the first one. The proposed townhouses do meet the setbacks along South Broadway and Plunkett Street. They are not at the zero building line. However, they are proposing to move them back and provide landscaping areas, provide greater entrance details than what is shown on the submitted elevation information. And those types of things will increase the pedestrian environment as you're walking down the South Broadway corridor versus what was proposed. That is, if it increases the pedestrian environment, there's a justification in the standards to move it back off of the property line. Staff is recommending approval of that. The townhouse parking lot, as I mentioned, is completely in between the two townhouse buildings that front off of South Broadway and Plunkett Street. The applicant is also proposing as a part of this development to create on-street parking along Plunkett Street in a defined and safe area that does not exist today. They will be putting in the curbs at the corners, putting in the striped parking spaces and the sidewalk for the Plunkett Street frontage on those townhouses. we do believe that the townhouse parking definitely meets the standards it's completely hidden and the only place that you would be able to view this parking area is from pine street which we believe is you know not one of the addressable streets that was intended on in the new town pike extension plan parking structures bicycle parking accessory structures most site lighting building facade site lighting all of those things were mentioned in the commercial report and and i'd like to move on to the building facade articulation on page four this is the building facade relief in how the applicant is proposing to stagger the townhouses now. Along South Broadway, they would be staggered anywhere from 6 feet to 10 feet from the property line. Along Plunkett Street, it would not have as much of a staggering, but that's because there is a very large overhead utility line there that squeezes that amount of space that it needs to do. They are fitting into that area those increased pedestrian activities, putting a sidewalk where there is not one today, putting in the on-street parking, the dedicated on-street parking. We do feel that the parking does meet the standards and guidelines for this one, and that the building facade articulation does meet that. On page 5, rooftop equipment, utility meters, all of the utilities for this subject property are going to be interior, along the interior at the backs of the townhouses in the interior parking area. So they'll be hidden from South Broadway and Plunkett just as the standards comply with. Facade transparency, this is first floor, how much windows there are on the first floor. The standard requires 20 percent. Once again, our elevations were not given to us with a defined scale. The staff's review of this feels that it might be a little bit shy. This is a standard that the applicant would need to revise their elevations to meet that standard for the 20 percent building facade transparency. Signage, the staff doesn't see any reason why the townhouse unit, these residential townhouse units would require signage. But once again, it would be covered by the development plan note that signage would be per the Article 17 and the NPE standards. I think finally, as you get to page six and look at the necessary revisions for the townhouses, there are two standards, once again, B2 and C1, which the applicant is requesting relief of. The applicant must provide calculations to show that they meet the 20% transparency or revise their plans to meet it. and entrance details should be given on this and given greater attention as committed by the applicant. In conclusion, the staff is recommending approval. We do feel that the applicant has made a good faith effort to meet the guidelines. We've got the same wording that it meets the significant compliance, but meaning that the only two standards that it doesn't meet are B2 and C1 and that relief is being sought for that. If you can see on the conditions of approval, items B and C are a little bit different than the last plan, provided that the applicant complies with the 20% transparency and that the entrance details would be modified. If you notice D and E, if all of the notes that are on the commercial are added to the development plan, It will also cover everything that would be needed for the residential portion of the design approval. That concludes the staff report on the new MPE design standards. I would like to see if you have any questions for me. I'd be happy to try and answer them. Otherwise, I'll be happy to turn this presentation back to Mr. Martin to go over the final yellow sheet. I just have a question for Mr. Emmett. On the residential townhouse, now is that restricted to residential use, or can those be able to be converted to office? By the zoning standards, the zoning would allow an individual townhouse to have an office in it, and this would be a nice opportunity for a live work. On the development plan, they are denoted as residential townhouses. So that would need to come back to, in my opinion, would need to come back to the Planning Commission to amend that development plan. Is that noted or should we note that? It is noted on the development plan that there are residential townhouses. Okay, because that alters the parking situation. It would. Start converting those to a safe. It would. We have no reason to believe that there would be used or operated anything different than what the applicant is proposing. Are there elevators proposed for those three-story units? Not to my knowledge. Oh, actually, I think I'm going to leave that answer up to the applicant. The restaurant would have an elevator. That's all. Ms. Copeland. Mr. Emmons, if we're counting the spaces inside the person's garage door, their interior garage, what is going to keep that from being turned into living space or storage space or some paper put over the doors and living space? I mean, it happens in private homes all the time. Indeed, it does happen. I don't know that there would be anything on the development plan that would keep it from that, but from a practical standpoint, parking is going to be at a premium with this development, and a property owner, if they bought one of those townhouses, their only guaranteed parking spaces are in their garage. Well, you've got Plunkett Street. You're going to have all those complementary streets. Which would be on-street parking that everybody would have to compete for. That's why I was saying the only guaranteed parking space that you would have if you were in one of the residential units would be in your garage. Okay. And so how many people can sleep there? I mean, how many bedrooms did you have? They are proposing a combination of three and four bedrooms for the townhouses. And the third and fourth one would be on the third story, right? I think that Tom's saying yes. He looked at the floor plan more than I did. So that first floor is really a bedroom? What's on the first floor? That would be your kitchen, living room. The first floor has a bedroom. Perhaps we can put the floor plan back up on the overhead. If we can show earlier. We have a floor plan. So on that first, the one on the left is the first floor. That's just a bedroom, right? It's a garage. Yeah, I believe you see garage, bedroom, stairs, and foyer up to the second floor, which the second floor, you've got your great room and I believe another bedroom. My eyes are not as good as they used to be. And then on the third floor, you would have two master bedrooms. This is not two different floors. This is second floor plan A and second floor plan B. The applicant could probably tell you a little bit more about his floor plan than I can. Maybe you should hold those questions for the petitioner. One other question for Jimmy. Is Plunkett Street, did you say that's dedicated parking? Is it dedicated for the development? or is that open for public as well? It would be public street parking. What I meant by saying dedicated is that they would do the curves and the striping and make it not just a free-for-all along the frontage. It would be a defined, defined would have been a better word, defined parking area that they're proposing. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, Jimmy, you had rooftop equipment screening on the other, on the restaurant. On the restaurant, yes. That's not a required, right? I mean, their mechanical units can sit somewhere. They can sit somewhere. The design standards would require them to be screened and out of way of the public right-of-way. The applicant has told us that they propose rooftop equipment. On the residential? On the commercial. On the residential. On the residential, the applicant has told us that they're going to put all of their utilities to the interior of the property, behind the town in between the two outdoor units the convincing units I believe those are going to go in the in these green space areas that you see long what about the decks I think mr. Martin mentioned they were going to get some outdoor space with the decks they are above each garage each unit is going Are they shown on that plan? They are. They're shown on the elevation. They are shown on the development plan, too, but as the shaded area behind each of the townhouses. So they're going inside there, not on the outside. They're going over the parking area, not on Broadway or Plunkett. Yes. Yeah, they're back decks. They're not front balconies. Are there other questions? Mr. Owens. Since we're talking about this, Jimmy, I've got another question. Since we're talking about this, the decks obviously is going to be over the garage door. As far as parking, you said over the parking lot or over the parking spaces. Will parking be allowed outside in that between the building areas? Do you mean are people going to pull in and park under their deck and outside of their garage? They could possibly do that. I think depending on the size of the vehicles, they're going to run into a problem with that 20-foot wide minimum. Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. Can there be a restriction on that? I think you would run into an enforcement issue. I think it would be very difficult for the government to enforce that. I think that's, once again, one of those things that would be self-enforcing. People are not able to get their cars in and out of their parking area. They're going to find something else to do. My principal question goes to the other side of the townhouses, where you're talking about the building of saw and articulation and so forth. You mentioned something about 6 feet or 10 feet. So can you explain that? The proposed setbacks of the townhouses have approximately four feet between the front door, the front face of this one, and the front face of the next one back. So from the property line, they're about six feet back and about ten feet back. Okay. Creating those areas for landscaping and open space. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, Jimmy, I guess I don't understand. Staff, I guess you didn't agree to changing these design guidelines about the setbacks and so forth. Are you talking about the second floor and the bulk plane? Yeah, the bulk plane. I don't understand why this is the first plan, I guess, that we've seen under these Newtown Pike guidelines. You want to blow that off on the first plan or what? Actually, for the proposed development, and that will be, we talk in more detail in the next report that I've got to give, where the applicant is requesting relief from those standards. The staff did feel that they were justified. I plan to go over that more in the next report. You're going to give another report? Yes, unfortunately. We're not done. Is it next week when I'm on the end? Ms. Coughlin? This is very complicated. Mr. Emmons? Yes. When I read the standards, I assumed that on top of the restaurant, we should screen the utilities that are on top of the restaurant from the Lex's view across the street, because they're higher. Did I read that wrong? The standards primarily want rooftop equipment to be screened from the perspective of motorists and pedestrians in the right-of-way. The design guideline goes on further to say, you know, for when you're in an area of tall buildings, that you should also consider that. So far, the applicant has agreed to meet the standard. I don't know if they've taken into consideration in their design whether to also try and screen rooftop equipment from the view of the legs. That would be a question for the applicant. Are there other questions for Mr. Emmons? One. Mr. Emmons, depending on just what you said, other reports and so forth, I don't know. Mike might have seen it. I don't know if anybody else did. The previous plan, what is, you know, are you going to cover that at some point, or do you want to cover it later? Or, you know, I would like to see a little bit. Knowing how much material I had to present, I brought it up, and I was trying to give the commission I can easily stick the picture up on Elmo if you'd like to see. You can do it in whatever order you'd like to. I'd like to see something. No, at some point. Why don't you put that up on the elbow? This was the proposed picture of the development that used to be proposed for this entire block. to kind of orient the commission. This would be standing at the corner of South Broadway and Cedar Street looking at the subject property where you'd be looking at the commercial building in this case. At that time, they were proposing a very different project. This was a six-story mixed-use project in the B2A zone. Some of the major design features of this, they had underground parking that came off of Cedar Street. That's what you see right here as they would come in and go to an underground parking. They had a large courtyard area in the center of the plan, which was the primary justification for moving the 10-foot building lines further out to the street because that open space was being provided interior to the property. You can see from this picture that there was lots of architectural ornamentation and that it was built out of stone and brick masonry for the subject property. Those were some of the major components of the previous development plan. Sorry? I'm sorry. It was also a mixed-use development. They were proposing primarily offices and restaurants on the first floor that would take it back. I'm sorry. Point that way. offices and restaurants that would primarily be oriented towards the courtyard. If you look at the whole development plan, which I can't put up on Elmo, along Pine Street was a small surface parking lot, not entirely different from the parking lots that's being proposed for this commercial development. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions for Ms. Remens? If not, would you like to continue? I have nothing more to present. I'd like to turn it over to Tom to finish up the staff presentation on the development plan. All right. Fine. Then you'll come back at a later date. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, on the yellow handout that you have, are the revised conditions for the development plan on this property. As you have seen from Mr. Emmons' reports, the primary focus of this development has been on its design elements. With that, you can see we have standard conditions. We have changed or revised your discussion items, starting with number 13, which is the addition of the commercial and townhouse design elevations to the plan face. Again, we think that's important that it be included specifically on the development plan, just as it was on the prior development plan. As we discussed on the 20-foot access aisle, we now believe that can be deleted as a condition. As I stated before, the public safety and traffic engineering agreed that that would function and work just fine. and with the solid waste service positioned where it is and necessary, that is no longer an issue for the staff. For 15, we are asking that they document the usable open space for all the units. Again, you can see from the development plan they have shown a good distribution of that open space. There are decks associated with units. We just want that clearly documented and clarified on the plan. 16 would be provide the additional conditions from your staff design review reports that Mr. Inman's presented to you. And should you approve those, then obviously those standards need to be incorporated onto the development plan. Are there questions for Mr. Martin? I just have one for Mr. Holmes. Mr. Moore. I'm assuming traffic engineering will look at this in terms of access onto Broadway from Cedar and Pine and those types of things? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. It is approval of the cross-sections as part of the plan review. Okay. And I'm not sure. I mean, will there be restrictions on right turn only? There is a plan for how traffic has to move and the provision of lanes and that sort of thing, similar to what the Lex had to do. Okay. Ms. Copeland. Mr. Martin, the little green horseshoes there. Yes, ma'am. Is that where the air conditioner, the heat pump is going to sit? That is my understanding that the outside units will be placed in an area like that. So that's not usable open space, is it? No, but the decks and the front yards and that sort of thing that they are showing will constitute usable open space. Are there other questions? Mr. Owens. With so much of this going on, I'm not sure who to ask. As far as the townhouse, you know, two bedrooms, three bedrooms, and so forth, with the one bedroom being downstairs on the first floor next to the garage, is there, you know, within the – how is that prevented from being rented out? I'll put it that way, plain and simple. There is no, again, on a development plan anyway to handle management of the property. People are free to lease as they can legally do. Should they violate the ordinance, then it would be an enforcement procedure based on complaints. Okay, so those townhouses are legally set up for one family? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Is there additional questions? Thank you. Mr. Emens, welcome back. Thank you. On your agenda, under commission items, you have NPE 2011-1 for Jeff Morgan. That's the applicant that is seeking relief of the Newtown Pike standards in this ordinance. I'm sorry, page 7 of your agenda. For in your packet, it's in the white report that it has there. Just right behind the staff report is Mr. Murphy's letter requesting relief from the Newtown Pike Standards, and then there are some staff exhibits at the end of that report. The applicant has requested relief in three categories, The first one being that they've requested a clarification that the standards only apply to the commercial buildings on the property. Next, they requested relief of the bulk plane setback and finally of the off-street parking locational and standards there. In order to address each of those items in order, the first one, the clarification that the standards apply only to the commercial buildings, the applicant has tried to justify their request, noting a number of times that the Newtown Pike standards are called commercial standards, And they've got several instances in the Newtown Pike commercial standards where it only talks about commercial. They also opine that the townhouses were not in the mapped area subject to the Newtown Pike ordinance. To address the easier of those two items first, the staff would like to address the mapped portion. And if you turn, since the picture speaks a thousand words, if you turn to the, we've got the actual properties that are subject to this up on Elmo right now. And in your report, you can see the applicant's development plan along with an aerial of the surrounding area. The four lots that are highlighted in blue are the lots that show up in the Newtown Pike ordinance that are subject to this. And you can see that those clearly go into the yellow townhouse areas. There's actually nothing to dispute about the townhouse areas are in the mapped area according to the map. Furthermore, if you look at the actual language of the ordinance, which is in Section 10 at the front and center on the report, it says that the Newtown Pike design area for the frontage properties include all of the properties shown on the map and any other property consolidated to a frontage property. With the way the property lines currently exist in this block, the applicant could not do the proposed development that they're proposing without doing consolidations of the property. It's one contiguous development plan for the entire block, and the staff feels that it is subject, that the townhouses are subject to the mapped area and the provisions of the ordinance. Furthermore, the applicants, more importantly than just the map, the idea that the standards will only apply to commercial properties. The staff does not dispute the number of times in the NPE standards that it mentions the word commercial. The applicant has also submitted a letter from Mr. Jack Ballard of CMW, who was one of the primary authors of the NPE design standards, saying that it was intended to only apply to commercial development. However, the staff took a look at this in a broader context. The NPE standards were approved and finalized and sent to the government in 2007. In 2009, when the Urban County Council was adopting the ordinance, they were actually quite clear, and once again, if you can refer back to the front page under Section 10, that the Newtown Pike standards will apply to all properties that are on the map, excluding only single-family detached and two-family residential structures. It is the staff's opinion that in 2009, when the Irming County Council adopted this, that those were the only two types of residential structures that were exempted out of the design standards and guidelines. And that goes on further, not just looking at it from a legalistic standpoint, but on page two of this report, we have a quotation from the findings that the council had whenever they had this. And if you look at where we've added the emphasis, the Newtown Pike project area combines neighborhood planning with roadway engineering to develop a new road as an amenity for the area and to support its high-quality redevelopment, which includes improving the flow of traffic and setting a combination of standards and guidelines governing public and private building construction. The staff feels that it is quite clear, both in the language of Ordinance No. 105-2009, that the proposed townhouses and apartment complexes, for that matter, will comply with the standards, and it was also the intent of that ordinance to do so. The staff is recommending disapproval of the applicant's first request that the townhouses be not considered as a part of the design review of the standards. Request B was a modification to the bulk plane setback. And as we kind of mentioned, that's the 15-foot setback, whereas the first two floors would be right at the property line. If you turn to the back of this report, you can see some visual examples of what that would require. The applicant has proposed several justifications for relief of the bulk plane setbacks, and the staff agrees with some of these justifications that it is justified to seek relief on this project. First and foremost reason, once again go back in time, in 2007 when the standards were originally written, we had a very similar requirement in our mixed use zones, the MU2 and the MU3 zone. We had that 15 foot bulk plane setback. Over the years, every mixed-use development that came before the Planning Commission and the Council, every mixed-use zone asked for a waiver and was granted, and we found justification for the waiver of that 15-foot bulk plane setback to the point to where in 2009, with our last round of in-film redevelopment recommendations, we actually removed those provisions out of our mixed-use zones. Part of the problems with that is that if you think about that 15-foot setback, and you've got to provide some architectural structure underneath the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, whatever, how many floors you go above that, that 15-foot space actually creates a very awkward space. It's really kind of too big to just be window dressing, and it's not really big enough to be a full depth of a storefront. And that was the primary reason that change in the bulk plane restrictions were given for the mixed-use zones at that time. Furthermore, the staff also just kind of stepped back and looked at this. In order to comply with this standard, the applicant would pretty much need to change his entire development concept for the block and go back to a much larger mixed-use building for the entire block in order to comply with this standard. Simply taking the development that's proposed, taking the third floor of the townhouses and the third floor of the commercial building and moving it back 15 feet, would not yield a better development in this case. The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request to have relief granted of the bulk plane setback. Finally, a modification of the off-street parking requirements. As I mentioned earlier, it goes through A through F, and it's got very detailed requirements that talk about the location of the parking and the screening required on that. The entire purpose of that ordinance is to get the parking behind the building and screen it from the view from the public streets. In a sense, the applicant has done that with the subject property. As we looked at it and reviewed this, there's no doubt that South Broadway is the primary street to design to in this proposed block area. In a sense, this parking lot is behind the commercial building, just like it would be in the standards. In our very first report that we did, the standard says that it has to be 250 feet away from a major intersection. We originally said that this was a major intersection, but as we went back and looked at the Newtown Pike extension plan and looked more closely at the access standards, the nearest major intersection that the plan is talking about is where Oliver Lewis Way will come into South Broadway at Bolivar Street. This is more than 250 feet from there. This parking lot will essentially only be visible, possibly from the northbound South Broadway as you're approaching this area. Seeing that this, if this building also is about six feet from the right-of-way, the standards would require 15 feet setbacks. In order to fully comply with the setback standards, essentially, the applicant would need to move this parking lot more interior to the block and would likely lose residential units in doing so. The staff thinks that this is actually in the spirit of what the design standards we're trying to get to. We do think that, and as we noted in your commercial design report, that it is important that we look at detailed landscaping plans around this in order to soften that parking lot for the historic South Hill neighborhood. But at the same time, with the parking lot being where it is, we don't want to create the six-foot masonry walls. We don't want to create an environment that would, first of all, get in the way of site triangles, something as simple as that. And second of all, we don't want to create an environment that would feel negative for the pedestrians as they go along through there. The staff believes that the applicant's relief for this, requested for this parking lot is actually minor in scope because we do feel like that many of the design characteristics that were intended by the standard are in through here. And if we go with a detailed landscaping plan to soften that parking lot at the corner, that it will achieve the same goals that were going to be achieved by the standards. The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's third request for relief of the standards in C1 for the parking lot. If you have any questions. I went over this report very quickly, but it's been a long day and we're trying to. Are there questions from commission members or Mr. Emmons? Our reasons for approval are listed in the staff report. I've summarized them in my oral comments. We are recommending disapproval of A and approval of B and C for the reasons listed in the report. Okay. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. Just a minute, please. Mr. Emmons, this is a heavy-use corner, pedestrian, et cetera, and I question whether landscaping can take the punishment like a brick wall could. So I hope that landscaping means a brick wall rather than shrubbery. What the staff has talked about with the applicant, We haven't come to an absolute agreement yet because we haven't come up with the details of that plan. But the type of screening that we were talking about would be a low masonry wall with probably fencing, like a wrought iron fence or some picket fencing or something in between the masonry, so that you would be able to have visibility, but it would be up high enough that you wouldn't be seeing the full car effect. exactly what that height is, whether it be 24 inches, 22 inches, 30 inches. Okay. Those types of details we've not worked out. But we have relayed to the applicant what our intentions are whenever we say landscaping to soften that. We're not absolutely tied to that, but we are tied to landscaping that would soften that parking lot and be safe for both vehicles and pedestrians. But you're going into hard materials rather than... That's the staff's expectation. Are there additional questions? Mr. Owens? Jimmy, you've thrown a lot of us here. Are you going to be back to talk more? Only if you have questions. This does conclude the staff's presentations. Just to kind of be clear, there's only two motions that you need to make, one on the application for NPE and one on the development plan. Right. Okay. We've been working on this for a little while. When did the staff get these plans to go after them again? It's been coming in throughout the entire process. The latest revisions came in yesterday. Okay. So you've been working hard. It's a wonder you can – I'm sure your head's spinning. So there's one other question. I hope lost it. You've mentioned a couple times, going back to the pink and blue sheets, the fact of no elevations were given on this and you've worked hard to try and the recommendations are requiring 20% transparency or getting elevations and so forth. You're comfortable with that? I am because it's a standard that they'll have to comply with and it's our expectation that they will amend those elevations to meet it. Okay. Thank you. Or give us the calculations that they already needed. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Petitioner, you've had a long wait. It's been worthwhile. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing Jeff Morgan and his group. And with me today is Jeff Morgan and his twin brother, Jason Morgan. They are both partners in this development. And Brian Hill is here also from CMW Architects, our designer on this. And probably the most important thing I want to do while I'm up here is give credit to everybody who's been involved in this. And that is that we've worked long and hard on this over the last two weeks when it was discovered that this is in the Newtown Pike Extension overlay area. And since then, I think you can tell from Mr. Emmons' report that the staff has gone above and beyond the call of duty in going over this. They could have just said, oh, you know, come back next month. You know, we don't have time. They didn't say that. We have all worked hard on this, and I want to give thanks to Jimmy Emmons. He was sitting back there. There he is. and Bill Selle and Tom Martin and all the other, Chris King, and all the other staff members. I'm sure I'm missing some who have worked on this with us. And I'd also like to give credit to Jeff Neal and some of the others in the back who have worked on this with us as well. It's been gone over by fire and solid waste. And I'd also like to thank the South Hill Neighborhood Association that has met with us three times starting back in December or before at their monthly meetings to get reports. They've seen the same, exact same renderings and development plan that you're seeing here today, which was the result in the letter of support that they have given us. We do want to thank them because they have spent time on this and will continue to spend time on this as well. And from our perspective, we've worked hard on this too. We've burned a lot of midnight hours in getting these submissions to the staff, what I've done, what Brian Hill and Doug Maxson and Todd Ott over at CMW have done. And I also, since you may be watching, want to thank my wife, Pat, who my secretary has been out sick this week, and she has come in in the darkness, in the evening hours, to be with me to help get these documents out to the staff. And last but not least, I want to thank you all, especially those of you all who are on the subdivision committee, Ms. Copeland, Mr. Owens, Mr. Cravens. I think you all were on the subdivision committee last week who, through your encouragement, I think gave us the energy to get all this done and get it presented to you. So I think the staff is fulfilling its obligations of being true infill planners and wanting to see the review of this, and we thank them and thank you. You're spending a lot of time on this today for the review of this. In general, we agree with the staff's reports to you. I have one minor quibble, which I'm not going to fall on my sword about. I do need to explain to you why I differ with them on that point. But we're in general agreement with what the staff has recommended to you on that. I just want to go over a couple things. The first thing I want to mention on your yellow sheet on the recommendation, the yellow 8.5 by 14 sheet up at the top where it says proposed 8,400 square foot restaurant, that's not the actual square footage. It's more like 9,500, and that was reflected on the plan in Mr. Martin's presentation. And I just want to note for the record that that's not the correct square footage on there. I just need to have that in the record there so nobody says later on, well, you're limited to 8,400 square feet. Just as a little bit of background, it's very exciting to work on this project because even though this is a small block, it is a full block development here. It's about an acre of land here, which is probably one of the smaller blocks in Lexington, but it's very exciting to have this together and be able to work on it. It's very constrained property. Some of the constraints are physical and some of them are others. the physical constraint is the KU easement, which runs the entire length of Plunkett Street. And Jeff and Jason have worked with KU, and KU has worked, and at some considerable expense they're going to move some of the lines over a little bit. There's still going to be overhead lines, but they're going to be moved over so we can utilize a little bit more of this space. but that is requiring some of the setback along Plunkett Street right there. One of the constraints we've had is that old plan that you saw, the six-story. It was a condominium hotel, which was approved on this site, and so we inherited that plan. Whoever buys this property inherits that plan, and we're not sure how realistic that was to start with, but needless to say, the property now is a bank-owned property. So we're dealing with the bank that owns it and wants to sell it, and they have graciously extended us week by week closing date until we can get all these things taken care of. We're dealing with another bank who's the lender to Jeff and Jason's company, which is working with us on the financing. Also, in the previous go-round with the old development, The old developer met with South Hill Association also, and South Hill Association made a very shrewd mood. They put a deed restriction on this property that said it could only be developed exactly in conformance with that old site plan, the five- or six-story condo hotel, or else we'd have to come back and negotiate with the South Hill Association. So we are doing that, and you can see that letter is the result of the negotiations we've had and them seeing this plan too. And we have the surrounding uses, which are, of course, the lecks across the street, across South Broadway, which is a three- and four-story apartment-type development, which is set back a little further. And, by the way, that came in prior to the Newtown Pike Extension commercial guidelines on there, so they weren't and didn't have to be planned in accordance with those guidelines. We have the car wash over here, which is a very nice car wash, probably the nicest one in Lexington architecturally. Over here we have the South Hill neighborhood and up here. So we're sort of transitioning from the real high-density student-type housing at the Lex to us, which we're stepping down, and then we're stepping down over into the South Hill neighborhood over here on that. And we were in the infill area, and then we discovered we were within the Newtown Pike Extension overlay guidelines as well. So about everything you could have we got on this property and we're dealing with it, and we're very happy to be progressing as we are. As I said, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on going over the same items that Jimmy did because we're in generally agreement with it. with it, I did state, and I need to explain to you just briefly why I had stated that we didn't feel like the townhouses were covered by the Newtown Pike guidelines. And I've just got a couple things I want to show you here. As I said, I'm not going to belabor this, but I do need to tell you why I was making that point in there. One is, that's the guidelines themselves, and I just obviously highlighted the word commercial up there where it says Newtown Pike Extension Commercial Design and Property Access Standards. The next page is the ordinance itself, which Mr. Emmons mentioned, that if you could go to the page before Section 10, which I've used some yellow, which is a little hard to read, but it says Section 10, this is the 2009 ordinance, that all development within the NPE, it's Newtown Pike Extension design area, which includes frontage properties shown on Exhibit A and any other property consolidated, excluding single-family detached and two-family structures, here's the requirement. Shall require approval of a final development plan by the Planning Commission. So you all are doing that right now. So we're complying with that portion of the ordinance. Now on the next page, it says that structures on the development plan have to be two stories in height. shall comply with the standards and guidelines of the Newtown Pike Extension Commercial Design and Property Access Standards, dated 2007. So it says, number one, unless you're single-family detached or two-family, you have to do a development plan, which we did. Then it says, also, you have to comply with the Newtown Pike guideline extension or overlay extension. And then the next page is the page out of the guidelines themselves, which states, if you go down to the bottom B, well, I'm sorry, go to the top first. You were right first. It says the introduction was to address compatibility of commercial development. Go down to the page, if you would. and it says the purpose of the study was to develop a set of commercial design standards to best accommodate the desired character. And here's the key. Here's why I felt I had to bring this to you. It says, as used here, the term commercial is intended to include not residential, I think maybe that should have been non-residential, but not residential and mixed-use buildings. So we are a purely residential building. So it appeared from the wording of the guidelines that the guidelines were designed to address those commercial structures that were going in, or mixed-use structures which were going in the overlay area. On the next page, I'm highlighting just a few of the design objectives. And again, they all refer to commercial uses on that. But again, so that's why I had asserted this. There's a letter in there from Jack Ballard, who is one of the co-authors, who said that his understanding was all along that they did not apply to purely residential structures. But as I said, I'm not going to belabor that because the staff has gone on to consider these, and the two which we were asking for relief from for both commercial and residential, the staff has recommended relief on those two grounds. So I'm not going to go kicking and screaming if you choose to take a vote that I'm not too wild about on this issue, about whether we're exempted or not. I hope you would, but that's okay. The basic reason for the one, the bulk plane setback requirements, was that as we talked to the architects, the bulk plane setback for the 15-foot setback for the third story is basically designed so you get light and air down to street level, so that you avoid the New York City situation where you have the skyscraper canyons, where you only have sunlight for whatever it is, an hour a day or something like that, because it cuts it out. And in this location, that's not a problem. I mean, the Lexus setback, we have setbacks, we're not on the street all the way, so that's not been a problem here from a design standpoint. The physical thing on our property which has been most difficult, which would be most difficult in complying with that, is because we lose so much with that KU easement over on Plunkett. We lose that space that might have given us the freedom to accommodate that if we needed to. It's also designed for higher buildings. Our buildings average only about 35 feet in height. And as Mr. Emmons mentioned, these were modeled on the MU zone where you had that bulk plane setback as well. and that has since been eliminated from the MU zone because it was felt in the presentations of other properties that were subject to it that that could be waived as well. And I'll point out also that we are much more compliant with these standards than the previous plan was, the five- or six-story condominium hotel. Again, that was done before the guidelines were in effect. But comparing our plan to their plan, we are much more in agreement and compliant with the bulk of the other standards in the Newtown Pike Extension area. In the other one, which is the modification of the parking standards on C, Mr. Emmons articulated that very well. I think the idea for the landscaping is a knee, they call it knee wall, with some maybe wrought iron or something on the top of that. And we wanted to be very mindful of the fact that we didn't want to have a six-foot-tall, non-transparent fence there for community policing standards, that you need to be able to have vision in there to see what's going on on that property. And we needed a waiver of that just to get away from that requirement as well. And again, as I mentioned at the subdivision committee, we're not on the Oliver Lewis Way side of Broadway. I mean, basically these guidelines were designed for that new development which would come along Oliver Lewis Way on its way from South Broadway up to Main Street. Now, we're not in that area. We're across the street and up a block from Oliver Lewis Way, but we are in some of those map fringe areas on the plan, so I acknowledge that. And so we do come under the umbrella of these, but I think that some of the conditions are different on that new area as it is on this area. So with that, I wanted to mention the last thing I wanted to ask you about was how this hopefully, we're hoping very much that you will vote to grant the relief to the two out of the design standards. As you know, there's about, I don't know, 15 or 16 of them. We're asking for relief from two of them. And hopefully you will vote to grant that. And if you do, the question is, how does that get up to the city council? Because under the ordinance, under the standards, if it's a standard, you have to recommend, and the city council has to approve, just like a zone change or a conditional zoning restriction. I'm asking that you send it up just like you would a zone change or a conditional zoning restriction. And the reason I'm asking that is because it was mentioned in some of our meetings that there's been one earlier waiver of these standards, and that was a year or so ago, I think, and for some reason it hasn't made its way up to the city council yet. And if you send it like it's a zone change or a conditional zoning restriction, it gets sent up automatically, and it gets on the council agenda. So at least they have to see it, you know, and we'll see, yeah, we want to put this on the agenda or not, that we get that put on the urban county council's agenda. So that's what I'm asking you about is the procedural thing about sending it up just like a zone change or a conditional zoning restriction as the staff would normally do their report, attach the minutes, and send it on up to them. So, as I said, Jeff is here and Jeff is very enthusiastic about this. I think he wanted this block to do something with before the condominium hotel got there, but he didn't get it. And now he has an opportunity to work on this. Jeff works in masonry, so he's very excited about the ability to use masonry brick on this development. and he'd be happy to answer any questions about the design. Brian Hill here from CMW, he and his staff have been working very diligently on their design here as well. So, again, we thank you very much for the time and attention you and the staff and everyone else has devoted to this. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Are there questions for Mr. Murphy? Are there questions for the developer design? You had some questions earlier. You have a question? Would you like to ask it? Mr. Jones? I'm not sure who wants to answer this. answer this. I'm curious as to windows, doors, I guess on both commercial and the townhouses. Just simply from the fact I see some what I'm going to call window dressings, window treatments on the commercial side, but I'm not seeing anything on the townhouse side. And the way I'm looking at it, there's a lot of wall space there. Absolutely. And it needs to be, as far as I'm concerned, breaking it up some, adding some window treatments would help. And I know you're doing all this very quickly because I didn't see anything like this last week. But what are your plans as far as that? Well, the wall gets broken up. You know, I've done a lot of townhouses, and by the articulation of the front facade, it will be broken up. When you change the brick color out, that will assist you. One common has been to increase the presence of the doors. And we can do that either with a masonry stone wrap or a casing around the door, which would look nice and augment the doors. We could also break up. We typically break the band up, which would be here and here, either with a limestone band or what we call a soldier corps stepped out so that it doesn't look like a sheer wall straight up and down. So there's just a whole lot of detail that we can do to give one, give each unit its own identity. Right. You've got to be careful with that because you can go overboard with it. I've studied a lot of townhouse architecture, even all the way into Germany and Amsterdam, and you see a lot of taller structures over there, especially in Amsterdam. It does look like that big wall. It's not broken up in any undulation. So we have plans for that. It's just, you know, we've never had to submit architecturals of this process before, and we found out two weeks ago. So we've been trying to generate as much material as possible. Obvious, I don't own the land yet, so it's, to put it bluntly, I'm shelling out money as quick as I can to try to get enough material to get everybody on board, not just you, not just staff, but South Hill as well. You know, we've got a great relationship with South Hill. We've been very upfront with them, what we're doing. The name for the restaurant is the Jefferson Davis Inn. I almost bought that years ago when I first got out of school, and we've run restaurants in Louisville. And so we wanted to kind of bring that back. And South Hill has been very excited about that. The reason the restaurant is compressed is that we were trying to fit that 35-foot height. So you start with, I think, 11-foot first floor, 10-foot, 9-foot. But I actually want to proportion the floors, and if I get relief on the height, then absolutely that works out perfect. Sorry. No, no, no. No, you're good. What would you offer at this point? You know, you were talking about soldier caution and so forth. What would you offer at this point to, you know, give us or give me, I don't know what everybody else thinks, comfort to push this thing forward? knowing that those walls are going to be broken up to some degree? Absolutely. Right now I can commit to augmenting the door, most likely with a wood casing or pediment type of maybe three different types so that they're not all the same type. Breaking the front facade with the soldier at the bands across. Breaking up the side facades with soldiers, as well as possibly doing a false window or some kind of masonry detail inside the window so it's not just a sheer wall. Again, we can commit to that. Color, absolutely. It's definitely evolving. I mean, I want to be very careful. I've looked at Pageant and Lear's development from the very get-go. I wanted to buy that block before they bought it. I ended up steering off to another project on Red Mile. And I've watched this block from the Mark Ager Group to them collapsing, and then it coming back to the bank, and then the bank reclaiming it. And I've literally followed this lot for years, and I'm excited about the opportunity to develop it. I think this is good planning. I think it works for the community. It's not a student development. And addressing the bedrooms, you know, the common is if you go by, say if a young attorney buys a place down there, he's going to have a master suite, he's going to have maybe a baby room, an office. So you have to give them options. You can't just say, well, here's a two-bedroom. You really need to either give them a three or maybe they're going to use a fourth for a workout room or something. So we have to have some options there. The parking works. I have a lot of units that have this exact design on Red Mile. We see this design across the city where you park two cars inside the garage. There's 20 feet outside the garage where you can transition cars. If somebody comes to visit or if your sister comes up to stay the night, she can park her car. Obviously, you're blocking it in, but it's a management issue for the person that owns the townhouse. So it functions very well. But I can commit to those to help in design, and we can work with the staff on that. Okay. One other question, and I guess it's just educational for myself. Why no mixed use now? I know it's you. Yeah, absolutely. I touched on that probably at that meeting that I'm not just – I'm a fan of development. I watch everybody's development. And it's an economic issue right now that we have so much mixed use on the books. You look at, you know, Bill's development down there at Center Point. You look at the Lex. There's just so much product on the market, just like across all the real estate market. It's going to take years for it to absorb. You know, we're seeing second and third tenants inside some of the existing spaces, and you're seeing a lot of empty spaces still sitting there undeveloped. They're struggling to get tenants. and if I put that on the books, I couldn't get it financed, and if I did get it financed, it wouldn't work. So I had to find something that would work. The reason South Hill likes this is this is adding neighborhood. This is not student development. It's adding neighbors. So it's increasing the neighborhood, and that's why they're so amenable to it. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Copeland. Yes, sir. Sorry. How do you feel about dumb waiters? Is this something that would be an option or you're automatically going to put them in or what? We have to have that in the restaurant, absolutely. Not in the restaurant. Oh, I'm sorry. In the townhouses. I don't feel that's an issue. Okay. We have a lot of two-and-a-half stories on the books. Building inspection recognizes a two-and-a-half story as a three-story. There's no differentiation between them. You're not going to get an empty nester living in these. You're not going to get that demographic. What you will get is, you know, 20 to 40 years old, and they're the people that are going to climb the steps. And that's just not a problem. We don't need an elevator. We don't need a dumbwaiter. It will function very well. Okay. Are there additional questions? Mr. Cravens. Yeah. How do you intend to handle the front door and the sidewalk onto South Broadway? I mean, what kind of entry does this person have into this? Entry on the front door of South Broadway and the townhouses? Yeah, I mean, it looks like front doors. Are they just going to use those? The main entrance for all of these townhouses are through the garage door and the personnel door in the back. The entrance on the front will be decorative. It will be above grade. You know, from the Pine Street side down to the Cedar Street side, you see a difference in elevation from the sidewalk of three feet down to two feet. It's an elevated lot. So from that sidewalk, we will have steps up, and it will be an elevated entrance. So it's just going to have a stoop and then go up to the door? Absolutely, but it will be quite decorative. Exactly. And then I – Maybe some wrought iron, you know, like the Padgett's development. I guess Jimmy maybe can answer it about these buildings are supposed to be pulled right up to the right of way. What did you say about that? Shocking, isn't it? The staff feels that the pedestrian setback that they're proposing with the increased landscaping increases the pedestrian feel and activity of the South Broadway and Plunkett areas, and therefore the setbacks are justified to be where they are rather than at the end. That's a variance, right, from the plan? It's not a variance. The standards for the setbacks specifically have a guideline that that setback can be increased if it increases pedestrian-friendly elements. It doesn't seem like it says that here. I mean, I guess I'm the only one that's worked on this Newtown Pike plan that's up here. So you don't consider that a variance? No, I do not consider it a variance. I believe the standards give you the guidance that you can do that. Are there additional questions? Ms. Coupland? Yes. To move this forward, which sheet do we go to? We still have to ask for audience. We've still got a couple of things we need to do, and then I'll tell you how we can do this. Are there additional questions? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? Seeing none, does the staff have any additional comments to make? And at this time, I'll close the hearing. And what we're going to need are two motions, one for the development plan, And the development plan has 15 conditions, the last of which will include the conditions on your pink sheet and your blue sheet. So these do not have to be done separately. Then we will have another motion in regard to the Newtown Pike, which is on page 7. And that will be a separate motion. The one that Mr. Emmons just finished talking about, the changes to the design standards, what we just finished talking about. That is on the white sheet, the white copy like this. That is NPE 2011-1. Okay. So is there any other additional explanation or is there any other discussion by commission? Mr. Cravens. Yeah. Are we going to see, I mean, if we approve this, is that it? I mean, are we going to see these plans again and there may be renderings? I'm not pleased with the way the front door just dumps out on a Broadway. I mean, it doesn't seem like it provides an entry to each unit. Mr. Craven, to answer your question, ordinarily the commission would not see them again. However, I think the way your work sessions are, we would have no objection to bringing you any information at a work session for that type of review. Yeah, because they're not finished, right? That's correct. I mean, we're expected to act on them and they're not finished. I guess it's all. There are other questions or any discussion from commission? Then let's take the – I had one on the NPE. Okay. Right ahead. If we deny their assertion that it only applies to commercial buildings, because I guess we're setting a precedent for future ones that come before us. Everything that is in the NPE report is a recommendation to the Urban County Council. The council has the full say over what that ordinance says, but it was set up so that they have to get your recommendation first. On the first one, we prepared a final report similar to that we do with the zone change, and we will do that again with this one and send it on to council. The concern I have is I'm not convinced that this is supposed to apply to the townhome area. That's why. That's a question. Are there other questions? I'm sorry. Maybe for staff. I'm not sure who wants to try it. Mr. Murphy mentioned something as far as a suggestion on having this as a conditional zone restriction or something. Do you all have any suggestions or comments on that? I believe that he was just referring to the first one, the first NPE report, which was an anomaly that the Division of Engineering was requesting it on behalf of the State Department, And with so many government entities, it was unclear as to who was going to blue sheet it and actually get it to council. With this one, but that did set the precedent for how to deal with requests to modify this ordinance. And so with the lessons that we learned with that, we are addressing that internally with the Department of Law and the Division of Planning and the applicant. And we'll make sure that those types of hangups don't occur. they have every motivation to make sure that it doesn't. Okay. Are there other questions or comments? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Let's take the development plan, DP 2011-16, Mark Acre Properties. Let's take that one first. Mr. Holmes? I'd like to make a motion for approval of DP 2011-16 Mark Acre Properties with the 15 – Correct. 15 – Deletion of number 14. Deletion of number 14, 15 conditions. Is there a second? Second. The motion is made by Mr. Holmes, second by Mr. Owens. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. All right. Now, second is the NPE 2001-1. We will, is there any discussion? Do you all have any further discussion on that? Splanton, did your question get answered? I mean, the commission has the right to approve. In other words, you can change their disapproval. Was that your question? I guess my question was just if we go with the staff recommendation, are we then on record as saying that the Newtown Pike extension applies to commercial and residential, all residential? Like we need to let those make sense. This ordinance is not part of the zoning ordinance. It was an ordinance passed by the Urban County Council. You're only making a recommendation to the council. So when it goes up to them, they're going to say, yes, we intended it to apply to townhouses, or no, we did not intend it to apply to townhouses. On that one, I kind of feel like your recommendation has to do with an interpretation of the council's intent, and I think council is, in essence, the final body to say what they intended with those guidelines. So I don't think you're establishing any kind of precedent because it's going to be the council that's going to say up or down on that. That answered your question? Okay. I thought you still had. I thought you were still not real clear on that. Okay. Is there any other question or discussion? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion on this NPE. Ms. Copeland. I'm going to try this, but I could use some help. I move to send a recommendation to the Council approving an agreement with the staff, basically, on all three counts based on this worksheet and ask that the council please put it on their zoning docket. No, we can't do that. Well, if you just forward a recommendation, planning staff discussed this with me. The other one that the other variance, so to speak, from this ordinance was kind of different because it was strictly a traffic and access issue. And so it was sent to another division to blue sheet it. But this one, they're going to handle exactly the way they do all of their zone change recommendations. So if you just say to be forwarded as a recommendation to council, that should take care of getting it on their docket. Okay. This is to be forwarded as a recommendation to the council, and we could still use help. What the staff recommended was disapproval of the requested change A and approval of the requested change B and C, which have to do with bulk, plane, and parking lot standards. All right. We have a motion on the floor by Ms. Copeland. Is there a second? Second. Motion is seconded by Mr. Owens. Please vote. Is there any further discussion? Not. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. I know it was a long day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Salley. Madam Chair, thank you. The next item on your agenda appears in the middle of page 6. It's item E, DP 2011-19, an amended final development plan for Hamburg Place Office Park, Block 12A. This is for property located at the corner of Vendor Way and Pink Pigeon Parkway. I'd like first to use an aerial photo just to orient you to the location of the subject property. This area is to the west of Manowar Boulevard, and Manowar does not show in the photo, but Pink Pigeon Parkway is here. Its intersection with Ali Sheba Way is here. Ali Sheba is a parallel street to Manowar, which is further in this direction here. The next intersection coming from Manowar past Ali Sheba is Vendor Way. Vendor Way is a street that separates the Meyer development from some of the other big box developments. There is also a Culver's Restaurant in this location on Vendor Way, and it continues on to Sir Barton Way. The subject property for this development plan is at this location, and that would be, in essence, the southern corner of the intersection of Vendor and Pink Pigeon. There is an extended stay hotel immediately across Vendor Way from this property, and the proposed use of this property is also for an extended stay hotel. Of interest in the photo are these features here, which is an overhead electric line, and that was an issue at your subdivision committee meeting last week regarding this development plan. Using the zoning map to orient you, we have the subject property identified. Pink Pigeon Parkway is here. The area we saw in the photograph generally is here, and it is to the west of Manowar Boulevard. There are signalized intersections at Sir Barton, at Pink Pigeon, at Helmsdale, and at Todd's Road, Liberty Road, in this general area. The Hamburg office park is generally in this location, outlined in red, directly to the south and west of the Meyer store. This amendment involves the one property that we saw in the photo. And as I mentioned, the proposed use is an extended stay hotel at this corner. Pink Pigeon, and Vendor Way. The rest of the office park we've identified in blue just to show you the existing structures there. Outlined in green are a number of vacant lots still in the development. Alley Sheba and Vendor Way intersect at this location. The office park is just over halfway developed. I'm not sure that all of these buildings have been built as of yet. There is a detention basin directly across Vendor Way from this proposed extended stay hotel. It is to be a four-story high structure with 97 rooms. There are 103 off-street parking spaces proposed with this development plan. And they're to have a single access point to Vendor Way immediately opposite of the access into the extended stay hotel directly across the street. That is the development plan amendment that is before you. This plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for postponement. There were improvements at area intersections required to be reviewed under previous development plan notes. The staff reviewed that information with you at your subdivision committee, and in the intervening week we've also met with the Division of Traffic Engineering and also with the applicant. We have a number of items to report to you from our meeting on Tuesday of this week. I should have mentioned that this development plan was submitted to us on Monday. This is a revised plan from that which those of you on the subdivision committee reviewed. The three things that the staff learned was that the urban county government is in the process of requesting a CMAQ, a federal grant, for improvements in the vicinity of Manowar and Pink Pigeon Parkway. Not sure exactly what those improvements are, but we trust those will be intersection improvements at that location. That application has just been filed apparently in the recent past. Bill, I'm sorry. I was looking for something. I was looking for a possible revision. That's not here. Could you just back up and go over that intersection where you started there? Yes. What the staff learned this week is the Urban County Government has apparently applied for a CMAQ grant, a federal grant for intersection improvements at this location. We discovered that on Tuesday in our meeting this week. And that apparently that application has been filed and is now under review by the appropriate agency. Secondly, there are going to be some review of possible intersection improvements at Ali Sheba and Pink Pigeon that could be things like striping, signage, extending turn lanes, median changes, different things like that. A number of things are going to be reviewed with that intersection as well. Again, this came out of our meeting Tuesday with staff in the Division of Traffic Engineering. Further, the staff learned that there will likely be another development plan filed in the area outlined in green, some of the vacant property here in this office park within the next 30 to 60 days. So all of those are new bits of information since we met with you last week at the subdivision committee. The note on the development plan has been on there since 2006 and has come off with some of the amendments for the other lots that it did not impact, but it basically said that intersection improvements will be reviewed as these remaining vacant lots are proposed for development. And we had a considerable discussion about whether that note should go back on the plan or not. In essence, our discussion concluded that regardless of whether that note is on the plan or not, these types of reviews are going to happen as each of these amended development plans come in for this area. And once we all kind of discussed that, nobody really had an objection anymore to whether the note has to go on, doesn't come on, or not. The staff was comforted by the fact that we will have another development plan in this area as soon as two, perhaps three months from now to review. And certainly the staff is in a position where we plan to give you updated information when that next development plan comes in for this area. With that new information, the staff is comfortable in recommending approval of this development plan for the extended stay hotel. It was generally the consensus that this 97-room extended stay hotel would not push any of these intersections over capacity. There are some documented problems in the area, and what has been learned since your subdivision committee is apparently now those will be looked at in the near term, and the staff then plans to update you as we get additional information and additional plans in this area. There is a need to revisit some of the conditions listed on the agenda under the should this plan be approved area. The first seven conditions are ordinary sign-off type of conditions. Condition 8, 9 have been met with the revised submission that has come in since your subdivision committee meeting, and those can be deleted in the staff's opinion. Condition 10, addition of proposed easements on Lot 13. I showed you in the photograph the electric line that exists on the property. There will be a relocation of that line to accommodate this development, and a proposed easement is shown on the development plan. We would like that easement extended across Vendor Way to the south and continued, and so that condition does need to remain on this plan, Condition 10. Condition 11 was provided by your committee to discuss traffic improvements to Manowar and Pink Pigeon Parkway. That, in essence, is the note that I've mentioned from 2006. And from the staff perspective, whether that note's on the plan or not, we expect that those two intersections will be reviewed every time a development plan comes in for this area to give the Commission updates on whether any improvements are planned in this area or not. So with those three deletions of 8, 9, and 11, the staff is ready to recommend approval of this plan as it appears on the agenda. At this time, I'll be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our review or about the development plan that's before you today. Does any commission member have a question for Mr. Sally? Mr. Strouwens. Thank you. Bill, CMAQ, Grant, can you explain that? I have, I am not familiar with what CMAQ stands for. I might ask Mr. Neal for some help on that. Okay. Congestion Management Air Quality. Thank you. Okay. In subdivision, my interpretation was most of the discussion centered as to when the improvements, normally the improvements are tied to the lotting and at some point in time. So, okay, are you saying we've reviewed it and it's not needed now, or where are we? The existing note on the development plan that prompted Condition 11 said that those improvements would be reviewed as these vacant lots, as development plans come in for these vacant lots. In looking at the proposal for the extended stay hotel, we don't believe that one use will adversely impact these intersections. Okay. Let me ask you this. I can understand that. you're saying about 50% of this development is already developed? Yes. Okay. And we've got others coming down the line here very soon? Yes. Any one development plan probably wouldn't push the limit, but at some point in time that limit's got to be pushed. So how do we determine that? That's why at every development plan along the way, we're going to review these same issues with each one. Okay, so you're saying at this time it's not just this one development plan, but what's out there collectively doesn't require the improvements? What doesn't require the improvements is the one use that's before you today. The issue will remain from the staff perspective. And as development is proposed in this area, we plan to update you on the status of these improvements or redesigns and so forth. The grant, if it is approved, would likely allow improvement perhaps even ahead of development. We don't know at this point. So we're waiting for the CMAQ grant to see if it's approved or not? We want to update you on that part of the proposal. Mr. Neal's here. I hope he can correct me if I've spoken. It just kind of seems like we're going in circles because, you know, my belief is that, you know, if we've got 60, you know, if there's 50 percent, this is going to be 60 percent of it improved. We're getting very close. You know, if we're not already there, which apparently we're not, we're getting very close to needing those improvements. And, you know, my concern is that, you know, another lot is going to come in and we're going to hear the same thing. Well, this one lot doesn't need it. So is all of it going to be developed before we decide we need it? I understand your point. And what was of interest and very telling to the staff is the fact is that there is an expectation that you will have an opportunity very soon to review this same issue again with the proposed development in another 60 days. So we can give you updated information then, in essence defer this note issue to that time. Okay. And reexamine it as we go along. Okay. I just don't want to say reexamine, reexamine, reexamine. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Sally, I think there's a bigger issue here, and that's the big picture. Because Pink Pigeon serves a lot of other property other than just what's there on that bulletin board, and so does Man of War. So you could have extreme development off-site of this area right here that would trigger the need to work on those improvements. And so as long as we keep looking at it as just 50 percent of this white sheet, we need to look at what the traffic counts are and so forth. So when we get a CMAQ report, maybe that will give us information or data that we can pin down and say, now it's time to rework the intersections. It's important to note that the note on the development plan currently involving this lot isn't tied to improvements. It's tied to analyzing the situation at the intersection. It doesn't tie specific improvements to that intersection. It calls for this type of review as development plans come in for this vacant area. Well, I guess, and maybe Jeff can speak to this, when you analyze that intersection, it's going to take in impacts in a much broader context. It's not going to be just what happens at that intersection, what causes effects at that intersection. I'm assuming, I don't know, maybe that's part of the CMAQ. Thank you, Jeff. Let me try to – a little history of where the note came from back in 2006 is basically the economy was a lot different back then, and there was only one way basically into Hamburg for Man of War. We didn't have the Starshoot connection. We didn't have the Liberty Road improvements. And even in the last year, we've had Todd Road and the intersection of Man of War. the capacity has been enhanced there quite a bit also. So right now, we would like a little more time to evaluate what needs to happen now and work with the developer on any solutions and try to time to these developments as they come along as a trigger, basically. Does anyone have any questions for Jeff? Thank you very much. Petitioner. Dick Murphy again, representing Patrick Madden and Madden family. Matt Carter is with me from Vision Engineering, the designer. Warren Witt from Madden Development was here earlier and had to leave. We're in agreement with what the staff is proposing to you. the note which was on a previous plan and had been eliminated from subsequent plans, but said that Pink Pigeon, Man of War Boulevard improvements shall be further discussed with the development of vacant lots and then listing the lots. And we've been wearing out the staff, I guess I have, on these two things this week, so I appreciate them meeting with us. We've had two meetings, I think, with the staff and with traffic engineering and various other people about these as well, which had very fruitful discussions. And as Mr. Selle, I think, mentioned, since those notes were put on, I want to give you some positive things that have been going on out there. As you all know, Starshoot Parkway has been connected to Liberty Road two years ago at considerable expense to the Madden family, And that has had a positive impact on traffic in this area. And as Mr. Neal mentioned to you, there have been further improvements on down Liberty and at the Todd's and Manowar intersection there, which have improved the traffic flow in this area. When we got talking about the Pink Pigeon Manowar Boulevard improvements, it was mentioned that the CMAQ grant is in the pipeline. Hopefully the city will get it to do that. And we felt that the residential extended stay motel, which is coming in here, itself is not – everybody agreed that that is not something that is triggering further improvements due to, one, the Starshoot improvements, And second, the fact that it's a user which does not really add to the peak hour in the morning when people are coming in here to offices or stores, you're leaving the extended stay hotel, so you're going the opposite direction. Same in the evening when people are coming into the motel, people are leaving the offices. So it's not a contributor to the movements we were talking about. So we had some discussions about what Mr. Madden is going to have some discussions with some of the other property owners out in that area, and we're going to get back with the staff. And so we're in agreement with what the staff has proposed to you on this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there questions from commission members? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? Mr. Cravens? I'm sorry. I was just going to make a motion. Oh, I'm going to close the hearing then so you may make a motion. Move approval of DP 2011-19 Hamburg Office Park with 1 through 7, eliminate 8, 9, leave 10, and eliminate 11. So that's with eight conditions? Well, if that's what it adds up to. I think so. Just checking your math. Just checking your math. There's a motion on the floor by Mr. Cravens. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Holmes. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Thank you. I think our next item appears on the top of page 7, the Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit. And everyone has those. Let's copy that on the white sheet. Chair will accept the motion. Mr. Owen. Mr. Owen. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of the release and call of bonds dated March 10, 2011 for Mr. Chris King. Do I have a second? Second. Motion's made by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Cravens. All in favor? Aye. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, next item on our, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Motion is carried. Moving along, we have commission items. Is there? Moving along. Yes. We have a public facility review for, I think it's three different facilities. Three school sites. All right. Okay. This is on page seven of your agenda, and it's item A under commission items. PFR 2011-2, and it's a request made by Fayette County Public Schools, again, for three sites. One would be Breckenridge Elementary School, which is at 2101 St. Matilda Drive. One is for Cardinal Valley Elementary School, which is at 218 Mandalay Road. And one is Mill Creek Elementary School, which is at 1212 Reaver Ridge Way. And what I'm going to do is basically how it is laid out in the staff report, do each one separately. there are representatives of the design teams from each one of the school sites. So if you have any questions about anyone in particular, then there is somebody here to answer questions. The comprehensive plan, the 2007 plan, recommends public education for each one of these sites, and that is in recognition both of its historic use, the site's historic use. Two of the schools were built in 1962 and one was built in 1979. And it's also an indication of the desire for them to remain there. Public education is in reference to all public school facilities. It includes the central offices. It includes all the public schools and all their accessory facilities. I know in past public facility reviews, I've referenced the list in the comprehensive plan of the schools and the conditions that they're in. Some are poor, some are poor to fair, and some are fair. The ones that have been listed as poor or poor to fair are basically either under construction, completed, or in the process. The ones that are listed as fair, a lot of them are just now coming in, and they're just now ready for construction, and these three fall into that category. They're all listed as fair in the Comprehensive Plan. They're ready to begin construction. The construction bids start next week for these three. March 16th will be the one for Mill Creek, and March 30th will be Cardinal Valley, and then April 14th will be Breckenridge. Breckenridge Elementary is located on St. Matilda Drive. It's in the Idle Hour subdivision. We've got St. Matilda. This is St. Margaret. St. Michael comes around under, basically under where it shows on here, and St. Matilda connects St. Michael and St. Margaret. And then we've got St. Christopher Drive along here. Almost everything is zoned R1C in the area except for the properties along St. Christopher. Those are zoned R2, but it's all single-family residential development. The school was built in 1962, and it had additions in 1969, 1987, and 1990. The property contains about 9.78 acres, and there is a little bit less than 59,000 square feet of building there. And then there's a small storage building there. It's 97 square feet. And Alden, if you could put up the site plan, please. Hopefully you can read this. It's a little bit faint in some parts. What they're going to do is demolish the storage building and 36,650 square feet of the existing building. And they're going to add 50,330 square feet. And all of these site plans that I have here today show the finished product. They don't show what's going to be taken away or anything like that, what's existing now. It just shows the final product. And then they're going to renovate 22,300 square feet. The renovation includes replacing of the mechanical systems, the electrical systems, the fire alarm, and the fire protection systems, replacing the interior finishes, which would be floor ceilings and walls, and then the door hardware. And then at Breckenridge, they're also going to replace the kitchen equipment. New construction will consist of elementary and preschool classrooms, media center, administrative area, kitchen and cafeteria, and the mechanical room. And then they'll have side improvements. They're going to add new paving, expand the parking, and enlarge the bus loop. Then they're going to add a fire equipment turnaround area, which is this area right here. It'll come up from this one parking lot, come around here, and then they'll be able to turn around and come back out onto St. Matilda Drive. And then they're adding new play areas and new storm and sanitary sewers. and everything will be brought up to ADA standards. They anticipate that this will take two and a half years to finish. It will be done in three phases. They plan on starting June 1st of this year and then probably be finished by July of 2013. It will be occupied during construction because they're going to have portables on site. And when it's done, it will accommodate 625 students. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I'll be glad to answer them. And if you have any questions about the project, Ms. Katie Pentecoff and Mr. Jason Dunn and Mr. Paul Ochenkoski are here from the design team. Are there any questions regarding this part of the presentation? Okay, great. All right, next is the Cardinal Valley Map, please. There is the school. This is located north of Versailles Road. It's just north of Oxford Circle, in the Oxford Circle area on Versailles Road. This is Mandalay Road, and there are various neighborhood streets. It's a real convoluted street system in that area. But it's all R1C. The property is owned R1C. And Versailles Road, as I said, is just down in this area down here. This school was also built in 1962, and they added on to it in 1965 and 1985. It's a 7.76-acre property, and the school building itself is about 68,000 square feet. It's a one-story building with a basement. And then if you could put that site plan up, Alden, please. I think it's there. It should be attached to it. Okay. Thank you. Then they'll be adding 6,800 square feet to the main floor and then a new elevator entry at the lower level. New construction is also going to include a stage in the gym and an expanded media center and kitchen, and then they're going to have a new entry vestibule and a new mechanical room. And then the renovation will include, again, the replacement of the mechanical and electrical systems and the fire alarm and protection system. They'll also have the new interior finishes, such as the door equipment handles and that kind of thing, and then the walls and ceilings and floors. Site improvements, mostly they're going to do permeable papers for the parking areas, and everything will be ADA compliant. This school will also be occupied during construction with temporary portables, and they're scheduled to begin June and be done in fall of 2012. This will accommodate 675 students when it's finished. And Mr. Kevin Warner is here from Carmen and Associates if you have any questions about this one. Does anyone on the commission have any questions? Not? Okay. Next. Okay. Mill Creek Elementary, please. This is located on the southern end of town. Tate's Creek Road is to the west. It's to the west, and then Armstrong Mill is to the north of this property. The property is zoned AU, and it is surrounded by residential zoning except for the property to the north, which is also AU, but that's a residential property, so it's in the middle of a residential area as well. This school was built in 1979, and the property is a 10-acre site, and it slopes down to the creek that you see going across here. And the site has been terraced to accommodate the school building. If you could put the site plan up for that one, please. This school building has three floors, including a basement, and there are teaching spaces on all three levels of the school. The creek is a tributary of West Hickman Creek, and it's on the southern portion of the property. It's recently been restored. Let's see if you can zoom out a little bit, maybe. It goes along in this area down here, and it slopes down from the building down to the creek area. It's right there. But they've recently restored this creek and they use it as an outdoor classroom now. And there is no floodplain associated with this creek. It's just a tributary of the West Tickman Creek. The second floor of the school is the primary floor of the school. Most of the square footage and the major part of the renovation is going to be on that floor. They have the media center and the kitchen and cafeteria, art and computer rooms, nature studies rooms, and support spaces for all of these functions are on that floor. And then everything in the school, the whole school will be renovated, and then they're going to add 11,800 square feet to that. That will be to the first and the second floors, mainly the first floor. They're going to expand the administrative offices and the student family support services area and preschool classrooms, and they're going to also add an outdoor play area. The second floor will have smaller additions, 1,200-square-foot addition to the kitchen, and 2,755-square-foot addition consisting of an entryway from the bus drop-off, and then art and nature studies classrooms. This also will begin June of 2011, and the construction is scheduled to end December of 2012, and it will accommodate 625 students. Maureen Peters is here from Pearson and Peters Architects, if you have any questions about this site. Do any commission members have questions at this point? Okay. Well, there is no known opposition to any of these projects. Nothing in the comprehensive plan is in opposition to this. The text and the goals and objectives all support this as it has for the past public facility reviews. The goals and objectives are all on pages three to four of your staff report. And expanding these schools and renovating them will help to bring the school sites up to Fayette County Public Schools' desired standards and help them achieve their goals of providing safe and aesthetically pleasing facilities for the students and becoming a world-class school system by the year 2020. And even though there is a creek on this property, and I think there's a creek on the Breckenridge property, but there is no floodplain within 1,000 feet of any of these properties. There are streams in the neighborhoods, but there's no floodplain within 1,000 feet of any of these. But because there are streams in the area and because the properties are surrounded by residential uses, we ask that they use best management practices in all aspects of construction, that they submit a stormwater management plan to engineering to be looked at and accepted by engineering before they do any construction. And this is so that there is no adverse impacts to any of the properties around there, to the subject properties or to the streams that are in the area. But we have recommended approval of these because we find them to be in compliance with a comprehensive plan, both the text and the goals and objectives. And we can't really impose a condition, but we ask that they get any applicable permits from building inspection or engineering or whoever, that they do a stormwater management plan and that they use the best management practices. And then I would also ask that they remove the temporary buildings, the temporary classroom buildings, once the construction is finished. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Are there any questions? Mr. Owen. Thanks, Barb. And I've got to say, we've got to applaud these folks for being so diligent. I'm surprised they're still awake. Especially when they were told that it was going to be a short meeting. Yeah. Who lied there? You know, throughout, and this is a general question for all three, I guess. Throughout your presentation, throughout it, I heard one, and I think it was Cardinal Valley that mentioned permeable pavers. The past facility reviews that we've seen from Fayette County Schools, usually they're boasting LEED certification. none of these are the last one we saw that Mary Todd Lincoln did not have that as well I'm curious as to what's why and why not I can't answer that for them I don't know I'm sure it's expensive to do the LEED certification, to meet the LEED certification requirements, but I can't answer. I'm sure. I could probably find out and maybe answer for you the next time, but I don't want to answer that right now. I would love to have that answer. And I'm good with all this. I would like to add that consideration be given to look at that at any and every opportunity, including these going forward. Possibly the architects could answer those questions for you. I was thinking following up on that, maybe we could have a work session and have someone from the school board come and talk to the commission as we explore those. Maybe Mr. Wallace could come. He's in charge of facilities management. Well, a lot of the LEED's buildings haven't performed. That's probably why. I mean, they're not. Well, maybe. I mean, they've gone through all this LEED design and all this criteria, and they're not. There's no way to measure it, and it doesn't work. Well, the one thing that I'm looking at and considering the locus trace is working very hard to be self-sustaining in itself. And, you know, quite frankly, you know, being a public school system, you know, and they're trying to teach all this, they should be leading by example as far as I'm concerned, whether it's LEED certification or something else. I'm sure they're doing green building practices. Yes, would you state your name? I'm Maureen Peters. I'm with Pearson and Peters Architects, and I'm working on the Mill Creek Elementary School project. And I just want to mention, I am aware of the Locust Trace Project as well as the new elementary school on Keyshire Way, both of which are, they are not actually going to be LEED certified, I believe, when they're finished. They are trying to incorporate some items that are part of LEED design. One of the things to mention there is each of those are new buildings, so they are able to orient those buildings a little more to meet some of those certification requirements. At Mill Creek, while we are not going for any kind of LEED certification, we are incorporating many of the same features that are in both Locust Trace as well as Keyshire. We are going to incorporate permeable pavers in all of our new paving areas. We're going to include solar tubes to get natural daylighting into the building, and we're going to replace all of the mechanical systems with a much more energy-efficient system. So it is a desire of Fayette County to incorporate several of those things in these renovations. It's just not quite as easy in the renovations as it is in some of the new construction because we're not able to completely replace all of the paving on the site, you know, and change the orientation of the building to take advantage of, you know, more daylighting and things. So I'm sure Bill would be happy to come and talk to you about that. But I know in the case of renovations, it's just not quite as easy as the new construction. Yes, we do have bicycle racks we're planning to add. I appreciate you coming and saying that. And if nothing else, you know, let me know. Let us know. Let the public know that these things are being done. So, you know. It just wasn't part of the submittal information that we needed to give you all. So if that is something you all would like in the future, I'm sure something could be written more to address those things than just the planning issues. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? It's not. We'll. Yes, I'm not. No, I'm not. We have to have a motion for this. Mr. Cravens is ready to adjourn. Do I hear a motion for the PFR 2011-2 staff report on the county schools, taking the staff approval and recommendation? Yes, ma'am. I move for approval of PFR 2011-2, as staff has recommended with the one condition, noting that they are in compliance with the goals and objectives. Is there a second? Motion is made by Mr. Owen, seconded by Mr. Holmes. Any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. And thank you all very much for your patience this afternoon. We really appreciate it. Appreciate you coming and the time you've given. We do have one more item on the agenda. There is a suggestion of a cancellation of the work session on Thursday the 31st, I believe that's correct, which would be the 5th Thursday. I'm sure there will be objection from the commission, but we'll see. Just an idea, but we do have a work session scheduled next week, but we think we'll only need one. this month with you. So we would suggest that you consider canceling your 31st work session. Do I hear a motion to cancel the work session on Thursday, March 31st? Move to cancel work session on March 31st. Motion by Mr. Cravens. Is there a second? Second. By Ms. Platton. All in favor say aye. All opposed. Do I hear a motion to adjourn if there are no additions? Ms. Richardson, there is an APA office. audio conference next Wednesday. Oh, I'm sorry. Mitigating hazards through planning. And if you all would, you're all invited. If you would like to come, just please let me know by Tuesday afternoon, 5 o'clock, so I can have enough set up for you. Okay. Are there any other staff announcements? I didn't mean to cut the staff off. If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Meetings adjourned. Thank you. Sure. It's true. Dlinging about you and me