# Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 14, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1960 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1960?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-04-14 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 10,087 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 April 14, 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 consideration of 12 agenda items. The Commission took 9 motions and votes during the session and heard 4 public comments. Of the 12 agenda items presented, the Commission approved 5 proposals and postponed 6 others. The approved items included the Mahan Property, Unit 1-B (Apartments) amendment, the Phil Greer Property, Lot 1 amendment, the General Telephone Co, Lot 1 amendment, the Plaza Property amendment, and the Tates Creek Center (also known as Belleau Woods Shopping Center) amendment. The postponed items were Denton Farms, Inc., Unit 1-F; NDC Property, Unit 5D, PH II (Wellington); Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 18 (Townley Center); Parkway Plaza; Jefferson & Poole Property (Parkway Plaza); and Viley Heights Subdivision, Unit 3-D (Obe & Joella Waller Property), which appeared twice on the agenda. ## Attendance **Present:** - Carolyn Richardson - Mike Cravens - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Marie Copeland - Ed Holmes - Mike Owens - William Wilson - Eunice Beatty - Patrick Brewer - Derek Paulsen **Absent:** - Carla Blanton **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions **Postponement of PLAN 2011-22F: Denton Farms, Inc., Unit 1-F (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:02:32] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by William Wilson. The motion to postpone passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor: Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, William Wilson, Eunice Beatty, Patrick Brewer, and Derek Paulsen. **Postponement of DP 2009-75: NDC Property, Unit 5D, PH II (Wellington)** [timestamp: 00:03:41] Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Eunice Beatty. The motion to postpone passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. **Postponement of DP 2011-26: Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 18 (Townley Center)** [timestamp: 00:04:17] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Mike Owens. The motion to postpone passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. **Postponement of PLAN 2011-38F: Parkway Plaza (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:05:55] Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion to postpone passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. **Postponement of DP 2011-29: Jefferson & Poole Property (Parkway Plaza) (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:06:32] Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Ed Holmes. The motion to postpone passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. **Approval of Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 00:11:43] Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Mike Owens. The motion to approve consent agenda items DP 2011-24, DP 2011-25, DP 2011-28, DP 2011-35, and ZDP 2007-81 (with ZDP 2007-81 removed for discussion) passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. **Approval of DP 2011-27: Tates Creek Center (Belleau Woods Shopping Center) (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:48:39] Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion to approve with conditions passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. Conditions included extending sidewalk from Tates Creek Road across the access road to the shopping center front, labeling canopies in front of Kroger, relocating bike racks closer to Kroger's entrance, and a finding of significant compliance with Big-Box Design Guidelines. Condition 12 regarding the van pool lot was excluded. **Postponement of ZDP 2007-81: Viley Heights Subdivision, Unit 3-D (Obe & Joella Waller Property)** [timestamp: 01:16:23] Motion by Marie Copeland, seconded by Ed Holmes. The motion to postpone passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. **Approval of Release and Call of Bonds** [timestamp: 01:17:56] Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion to approve release and call of bonds dated April 14, 2011 passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor. ## Public Comment Four speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Marie Copeland** addressed the Big-Box Design Guidelines and van pool lot requirement [timestamp: 00:38:31]. She suggested that the Commission reconsider the requirement for a van pool lot on the Tates Creek Center site. Copeland proposed instead that support facilities be built on a second story to reduce parking needs and avoid turning the site into a park-and-ride lot. Later in the meeting, Copeland returned to speak about ZDP 2007-81 and enforcement timeline [timestamp: 01:09:17]. She asked whether the Commission could impose a 30-day deadline for certification of occupancy. She was advised that the zoning ordinance limits such timelines to one year. **Mike Owens** commented on van pool lot feasibility and MPO requirements [timestamp: 00:42:01]. He asked whether the van pool lot requirement could be revised to allow off-site locations. Owens noted that MPO staff had not insisted on on-site placement and suggested that Beaumont Shopping Center might be a viable alternative location. **Dick Murphy** addressed ZDP 2007-81 re-approval and enforcement [timestamp: 01:02:03]. He explained that the applicant had failed to certify the plan due to miscommunication with an out-of-town surveyor. Murphy noted that businesses in the building had obtained certificates of occupancy, though enforcement actions had occurred related to outdoor activities. ## Contested Items **Van Pool Lot Requirement for Tates Creek Center** Commissioners engaged in a heated discussion regarding whether a van pool lot should be required on the Tates Creek Center site. The debate centered on the practicality of the requirement given existing parking constraints at the location. Some commissioners suggested that off-site alternatives might be more appropriate and questioned whether the condition was necessary. The disagreement reflected differing views on how to balance transportation planning goals with the site's physical limitations and feasibility concerns. **ZDP 2007-81 Re-approval and Enforcement** A procedural dispute emerged concerning the Commission's authority and obligations regarding ZDP 2007-81. The disagreement had two components: first, whether the Commission could impose a certification timeline shorter than the one-year limit established by the zoning ordinance, and second, whether businesses operating without certified plans were in violation of regulations. This dispute raised questions about the scope of the Commission's enforcement powers and the proper interpretation of zoning ordinance requirements regarding certification deadlines and compliance obligations. ## Denton Farms, Inc., Unit 1-F (AMD) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2011-22F **Discussion Summary** John Barlow presented this agenda item, which concerned a proposed amendment to the Denton Farms, Inc., Unit 1-F development plan. [timestamp: 00:02:32] **Key Issues** The discussion identified unresolved issues regarding buildable areas within existing easements. These concerns required additional revisions to the plan before it could move forward for approval. **Outcome** The plan was postponed to May 12, 2011, to allow time for the necessary modifications to be completed and submitted for reconsideration. ## NDC Property, Unit 5D, PH II (Wellington) **Identifier:** DP 2009-75 **Overview** The meeting included discussion of a development proposal for NDC Property, Unit 5D, PH II (Wellington). John Barlow addressed this agenda item [timestamp: 00:03:41]. **Key Issues** Staff identified unresolved design and density issues with the proposal. Additionally, there were concerns regarding potential non-compliance with Land Subdivision Regulations. **Outcome** The plan was postponed to May 12, 2011, to allow time for these matters to be addressed. ## Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 18 (Townley Center) **Agenda Item:** DP 2011-26 Bob Cornett presented discussion on the Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 18 (Townley Center) development plan [timestamp: 00:04:17]. The review identified outstanding design issues that required further examination before the plan could proceed to approval. **Outcome** The plan was postponed to May 12, 2011, to allow time for addressing the design concerns and conducting additional review. ## Parkway Plaza (AMD) **Identifier:** PLAN 2011-38F Tom Martin presented this agenda item, which involved discussion of the Parkway Plaza project [timestamp: 00:05:55]. Following a staff request for a one-month delay, the plan was postponed to allow time to address outstanding issues. The postponement was scheduled for May 12, 2011. ## Jefferson & Poole Property (Parkway Plaza) (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2011-29 **Overview** The board discussed the Jefferson & Poole Property (Parkway Plaza) development plan during this meeting. [timestamp: 00:06:32] **Key Speaker** Tom Martin presented on this agenda item. **Outcome** The plan was postponed to May 12, 2011. The postponement was due to unresolved design issues concerning improvements on the property that required further resolution before the board could proceed with approval or additional action. ## Mahan Property, Unit 1-B (Apartments) (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2011-24 **Type:** Consent Agenda Item **Outcome:** Approved This agenda item concerning the Mahan Property, Unit 1-B (Apartments) was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:07:41]. The project was presented by Chris King and Bill Sallee. The approval included conditions addressing several infrastructure and site planning concerns: - **Drainage:** Conditions were imposed to ensure proper drainage management for the property - **Traffic:** Traffic-related conditions were established for the development - **Landscaping:** Landscaping requirements were specified as part of the approval - **Pedestrian Crosswalks:** Conditions related to pedestrian crosswalk safety and accessibility were included The item was processed through the consent agenda, indicating it was approved without extended discussion or debate during the meeting. ## Phil Greer Property, Lot 1 (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2011-25 This item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:08:17]. The proposal for Phil Greer Property, Lot 1 included conditions addressing drainage, traffic, landscaping, and site statistics. Key speakers on this item included Chris King and Bill Sallee. The item was approved with the following conditions: * Drainage requirements * Traffic considerations * Landscaping specifications * Site statistics compliance **Outcome:** Approved ## General Telephone Co, Lot 1 (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2011-28 **Item Type:** Consent Agenda This item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:08:55]. Key speakers on this matter included Chris King and Bill Sallee. **Approval and Conditions** The proposal for General Telephone Co, Lot 1 (AMD) was approved with the following conditions: * Drainage requirements * Traffic considerations * Landscaping specifications * Tree protection measures **Outcome** The item was approved as presented. ## Plaza Property (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2011-35 **Type:** Consent Agenda Item **Outcome:** Approved This item was approved as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:10:06]. The Plaza Property amendment involved several conditions that staff required for approval. **Key Conditions** The approval included conditions related to: - Drainage - Traffic - Landscaping - Technical review **Staff Notes** Staff members Chris King and Bill Sallee noted that last-minute cleanup efforts were undertaken prior to the meeting, indicating final preparations were made to address outstanding issues before the item came before the body for consideration. ## Viley Heights Subdivision, Unit 3-D (Obe & Joella Waller Property) **Identifier:** ZDP 2007-81 The plan for the Obe & Joella Waller property in Viley Heights Subdivision, Unit 3-D was removed from the consent agenda to allow for further discussion on outstanding issues [timestamp: 00:09:25]. **Key Speakers** Marie Copeland and Dick Murphy led the discussion on this agenda item. **Issues Discussed** The plan could not proceed to approval due to unresolved conditions. Two primary concerns were identified: - **Outdated floodplain information:** The floodplain data associated with the plan required updating before approval could be granted. - **Missing sign-offs:** Required approvals or authorizations had not yet been obtained. **Outcome** The item was postponed to allow time for these conditions to be addressed. The plan was removed from the consent agenda rather than approved, indicating that additional work and coordination would be necessary before the matter could be brought back for consideration. ## Tates Creek Center (aka Belleau Woods Shopping Center) (AMD) **Project Identifier:** DP 2011-27 **Overview** The board discussed an amendment to the Tates Creek Center, also known as Belleau Woods Shopping Center. [timestamp: 00:13:19] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Bob Cornett, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Taylor. **Outcome** The project was approved with conditions. The approval included the following requirements: - Sidewalk extension - Canopy labeling - Bike rack relocation - A finding of significant compliance with Big-Box Design Guidelines The board removed the van pool lot condition that had previously been included. ## Viley Heights Subdivision, Unit 3-D (Obe & Joella Waller Property) **Case Number:** ZDP 2007-81 **Discussion Type:** Postponement The board discussed the Viley Heights Subdivision, Unit 3-D project for the Obe & Joella Waller property [timestamp: 01:16:23]. Key speakers in this discussion included Dick Murphy and Marie Copeland. The item was postponed to allow the applicant additional time to address outstanding conditions. Specifically, the applicant was required to provide updated floodplain information and obtain necessary sign-off requirements before the matter could proceed further. **Outcome:** Postponed --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of PLAN 2011-22F: Denton Farms, Inc., Unit 1-F (AMD) - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2009-75: NDC Property, Unit 5D, PH II (Wellington) - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2011-26: Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 18 (Townley Center) - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of PLAN 2011-38F: Parkway Plaza (AMD) - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2011-29: Jefferson & Poole Property (Parkway Plaza) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items (DP 2011-24, DP 2011-25, DP 2011-28, DP 2011-35, ZDP 2007-81) with ZDP 2007-81 removed for discussion - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of DP 2011-27: Tates Creek Center (aka Belleau Woods Shopping Center) (AMD) with conditions, excluding condition 12 (van pool lot) - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of ZDP 2007-81: Viley Heights Subdivision, Unit 3-D (Obe & Joella Waller Property) - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of release and call of bonds dated April 14, 2011 --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals today? Yes, ma'am. My name is John Barlow, and I'd like to ask for postponement of Plan Number 2011-22F, Denton Farms, Inc. For how long? 30 days. 30 days. Mr. Salley, what is the date? Your next meeting date, Madam Chair, for subdivision items is May 12th. That's four weeks from today. May 12th? I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am, May 12th. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to this postponement? Not? Madam Chairman. Mr. Craven. Move postponement of Plan 2011-22F until May 12th. Thank you. Is there a second? The motion has been made and seconded. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Oh, you have another one. Okay. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to ask for a 30-day postponement on Development Plan 2009-75 NDC property. 30 days, please. For one month? Yes, ma'am. Page 4, item G. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to this postponement? If not, I'll turn it over to the Commission. I hear a motion. Madam Chair, I'll move for postponement of CP2009-75 until May 12th. I have a motion by Mr. Owens. Do I hear a second? Second by Ms. Beatty. All in favor, please say aye. Electronically. There we go. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Are there others? Madam Chairman, my name is Bob Cornett. I'm with the Roberts Group on page 3, item C, DP 2011-26, the Sharkey Properties. We would like to ask for a one-month postponement. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to this postponement? If not, turn it back over to the Commission. Is there a motion for postponement for one month, which would be May 12th? Madam Chairman. Mr. Craven. I move postponement of DP 2011-26 until May 12th. Is there a second? Second. Motion by Mr. Craven, second by Mr. Owens. All in favor, please say aye or vote electronically, whichever. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Are there others? If not, then... Excuse me, Madam Chairman. I'm sorry. Staff does have two items to bring to your attention. On page two of your agenda, item B, Plan 2011-38F Parkway Plaza amended. We have received an e-mail communication from that applicant requesting a one-month postponement. Okay. Is there anyone who objects to that one-month postponement? If not, the Chair will accept a motion for postponement for one month to the May 12th meeting. That's for Plan 2011-38F. Madam Chair, I'll move postponement plan 2011-38F until May 12th. Motion by Mr. Owens. Do I have a second? Second by Mr. Brewer. All in favor, please say aye. Vote electronically. Yes. Motion carries. And yes, ma'am, on the bottom of page 3 of your agenda, item F, development, Development Plan 2011-29, Jefferson and Poole property, Parkway Plaza amended. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement on that plan as well. Thank you. Is there anyone who objects to that postponement? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion for a one-month postponement for DP 2011-29. until our May the 12th meeting. So moved, ma'am. Motion by Mr. Owens, second by Mr. Holmes. All in favor, please say aye. I'm trying to keep you all on your toes. Are there other postponements, Mr. Martin? And we will move on to the next item on our agenda. No discussion items for the consent agenda. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are still a number of items that qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda. There are five such items. All are final development plans. The first appears on your meeting agenda, page 2, item A, DP 2011-24, an amended final development plan for the Mayhand Property, Unit 1B, the apartment area. This involves property at 4161 Victoria Way. The next item on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda as well, Page 2, Item B. This is DP 2011-25, an amended final development plan for the Phil Greer Property, Lot 1. This involves property at 3098 Richmond Road. The next remaining item on your consent agenda appears on page 3, item E of your meeting agenda. This is DP 2011-28, an amended final development plan for General Telephone Company, Lot 1, for property at 3841 Nicholasville Road. The next item on your consent agenda appears on page 4, item H of your meeting agenda, DP 2011-35, an amended final development plan for Plaza Property located at 1760 Harrodsburg Road. The final item on your consent agenda appears on page 5, item I, of your meeting agenda. This is ZDP 2007-81, a preliminary development plan for Viley Heights Subdivision Unit 3D, also known as the OB and Joella Waller property. This property is at 1388 Alexandria Drive. These items have all been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee and can be considered at this time for your consent agenda approval, unless a member of the commission or a member of the audience would wish a further discussion of any of these five items. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to any of these properties being on the consent agenda? Seeing none, then I will ask, is there anyone on the commission who would like to pull one of these for discussion? Mr. Owens. Yes, ma'am. I would like to pull ZDP 2007-81, Viley Heights. On page 5. Yes, ma'am. Page 5, item L. Ms. Copeland. Yes. Madam Chairman, I have a question about DP 2011-35 at the bottom of page 4. At committee meeting, there were a number of dangling cleanup issues, and I'm questioning, have they been cleaned up? Staff did receive a revised plan this week addressing many of those conditions. So all the ones underneath item 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 pretty much have been cleaned up? Other than, of course, they still have to be reviewed by technical committee, and we still require the Kentucky Department of Transportation's approval of access 15 and 16. But those other housekeeping? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. I would like it in the minutes that this group came in at the last minute with their cleanup. I don't want to pull it. You do not want to pull it? No, but they did push the button. Are there any other of these that the commission would like to have pulled for discussion? If not, then we will give the staff a few minutes and – oh, I have a motion. I'm sorry. I was moving right along today. Do I hear a motion that we remove these from the consent agenda, these two items? No, just one of them. One of them. Oh, okay. So moved. Second. Motion by Ms. Phillips, second by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. We'll now let the staff have time to set up for the first one. I know. We need one more. Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we approve the consent agenda as presented with the last item poll. last item pulled. We have a motion by Ms. Phillips. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Owens. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Consent agendas passed. All right. The next item on your agenda appears on page three. That is DP 2011-27, the Tates Creek Center, Bella Wood Shopping Center. This is a final development plan for property located at 4051 Tates Creek Road. This property is located at the intersection of Tates Creek and Manowar. The Bella Wood subdivision is behind it, off of Wilson Downing Access Inn across from the apartment complex here, as well as off of Wilson Downing across from Sarin Drive. The purpose of this amendment is to demolish a portion of the strip center on the left side of the Kroger as you're facing it, replace it with a 36,000-square-foot addition to the existing Kroger, as well as replacing square footage for the bank, roughly 4,700 square feet. This plan, the addition to this Kroger, did trigger the application of our big-box design guidelines, which Mr. Martin will go over with a big box report here in just a second. The applicant did propose transit facilities, a bus pull-off, and transit shelter in this location with their other pedestrian amenities that are part of the big box design guidelines. The applicant also, in order to meet the parking for this, this transit amenity does allow the applicant to take a 10% reduction in their overall parking. That does basically allow this expansion to occur on the site. Otherwise, they would not have had sufficient parking. The subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan subject to the 12 conditions as noted on your agenda. Number nine relates to the Planning Commission making a finding that this development plan does comply with the big box design guidelines. The tenth is to resolve a building and easement conflict to the rear of the building. The proposed addition has an easement back here, the sanitary sewer easement that will have to be released, a new easement created to allow this that will be denoted on the plan. The certification of this plan will allow them to go ahead and start work on that, release the easement through council, and create a new one with an easement minor plan. Number 11 is to resolve the addition of pedestrian connections and sidewalks to better address the big box design guidelines. At the subdivision committee, there was further discussion related to additional pedestrian facilities needed to serve the site. The applicant did provide a sidewalk along Tate's Creek where one did not exist. The property has sidewalks along Man of War, but they end at the intersection. This proposal does bring the sidewalks down from this intersection to this entrance where the grade is not so steep that they can't bring the sidewalk into the property. So this sidewalk all down through here into here is new. The question through subdivision committee was whether or not this location to dump the pedestrians out was sufficient. I believe the applicant, through part of that resolution of this, will be bringing the pedestrians out closer to the intersection where there's not in the curve and a little piece of sidewalk in here to help get pedestrians into the shopping center more safely. And the last condition was to discuss the need for additional transit facilities, a possible van pool lot. We wanted to, because the 10% parking reduction is a pretty significant reduction under our guidelines, the staff wanted to make sure that we were really getting all of the pedestrian facilities and amenities needed on this plan. And one of the possibilities through dealing with our Metropolitan Planning Organization folks and their contacts in LexTran was to see if we wanted to have a place for van pool, which is similar to a carpool, but without a LexTran bus. They rent a 16-passenger van. They meet the location. The cars are parked during the day. And the van comes and drops off, and then they take the van with them. I believe the applicant has stated that they were willing to do so, but that they would be checking with the owner of the lot to see if that would be something that they could work out. Again, the Sotheby's Community recommended approval, and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Are there questions from commission members? Thank you very much. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, you should have before you a copy of the report on the big box compliance guidelines. You can see before you and along with the development plan are elevations that were submitted with this plan to demonstrate their compliance with these guidelines. One of the important aspects of big box compliance is, of course, to break up the monolithic facade that exists in our big box structures. You can see from this elevation that they are breaking this up by relief features every hundred feet or less along the frontage. and this is running along the front of Kroger's around the corner, and, of course, you can see the bank located here. Staff has reviewed this, and, again, as you can see how they've broken it up and with columns that we do believe that they are complying with that particular design guideline. Secondly, our building heights, and they need to break up building heights with mansard roofs, parapet walls, and that sort of thing. This was of considerable discussion at your subdivision committee. The elevations presented does present a broken roof line and help with that. Staff did find that this brought them into more compliance. At your subdivision committee, there was considerable discussion about increasing this relief at this point by increasing this roof height. I do believe the applicant has handed out materials to you that indicates that they are willing to do that. Staff has not seen those handouts, so that's why we're showing you what we have here today. But again, we do believe not only do they comply with the guidelines, they will even comply more substantially by increasing that relief between this parapet and this roof as well, much similar to this, not as great, but similar to that relief. smaller stores are guideline number three and and this is an attempt to create what would be the appearance of a bank of stores along the main street and that sort of thing in other big box developments around town the initial response to that was kind of those fake looking storefronts in this regard they have broken it up compartmentalized it in this fashion a staff does believe that this particular approach does meet that guideline and bring it much more into compliance. It helps with the Chase Bank as well with the way they have presented that. Customer entrances are a very important part of the big box guidelines. And you can see they are clearly delineating walkways and pedestrian crossways into the area and again by having this type of detail which they've already done here, here, over here at the pharmacy and the spirit store and then once again with the bank we believe that they are substantially complying with that guideline as well. They are also required to provide these customer entrances facing public streets. Again, here's the front. You can see it over here. And they are facing this public street. The bank, by being located here, allows them to face this public street, Man of War. Obviously, this site poses some challenges with it being situated the way it is to get the Kroger's itself completely positioned to accomplish that. But the bank, which is a part of this expansion, does assist in their compliance with that standard. The additional requirements address residential uses, and they address the loading docks, garbage pickup, that sort of thing. There are no residential areas immediately adjacent to this property. However, this is the existing area where all those types of activities, the loading docks, garbage pickup, and that sort of thing take place. They're not proposing to change that. staff does feel they're complying with that guideline. Sidewalks are required as well. They do meet this guideline currently, and that sidewalks do front the entire development. They are required to provide two pedestrian amenities. Mr. Taylor touched on those. They are, in fact, offering a transit shelter, a bus pull-off in this area. It's important to note that a full bus cannot service this particular stop. Lex Tran has a full stop up here along Wilson Downing. However, this stop will facilitate wheels and smaller vehicles that they use to provide services, which is their intent. And they have communicated their appreciation of that ability to do that. They have also provided another amenity immediately adjacent to here, which is a pedestrian sitting area. This is not uncommon, as you've seen in other developments, one of the amenities that they add to the plan for Big Box. Again, I touched on the fact that they're going to highlight these crossings. That's a guideline that they must meet, and they're clearly meeting that with this plan. There is one guideline on creating parking so pedestrians can move perpendicular to the parking, through the parking lot. Generally, when you have large parking lots, that's how they function. And although these are angled, they are substantially meeting that by the original layout. This, however, leads to another guideline. The 60% parking shall not be located in front of the building. And, of course, that is what we apply to new big box developments, where we can restrict that and see to it that it's screened. You have outlot developments and that sort of thing. This was built in the late 80s, obviously, before the guidelines existed. And the parking is what it is. They're proposing no changes. So they do not meet that guideline. However, it would be quite a challenge to try to relocate that parking elsewhere on the site. Another guideline they must meet are bike racks. They've currently shown them in this location. You will see in your conditions on your report that we are recommending that they move the bike racks closer to the entrances. Bicyclists, it is our understanding, are worried about bicycles being stolen. So they like for their racks to be within a line of sight. And there was some concern that if they were moved out of a line of sight from the front of the store, that they would feel less secure and not utilize the bike racks. And certainly we would want those bike racks to be utilized. So that is an aspect of our recommendation is that they move those. And that concludes my report. You can see from the recommendations, conclusions and recommendations, Pardon me. There is something I need to touch on that I haven't. I apologize. Although it is an aspect of our conclusions, we have concluded staff has that they substantially meet the guidelines, and particularly the challenge that they face with an existing development. We do have conditions of approval, which we recommend that they extend the sidewalk, and I apologize. I meant to talk about that. Mr. Taylor touched on that. They are required to build sidewalks along their frontage. It exists on Manowar. They are going to build a sidewalk along States Creek through here. They're going to bring it down to here. Now, we are recommending that they restructure this to allow pedestrians a safe and clear access down to here, to the sidewalk. Part of our concern with here, you can see the traffic movements, and this is poor sight distance relative to those movements. They have responded positive to that and are going to work with staff to create a better pedestrian passage through this area. In conjunction with these pedestrian and transportation questions, the issue of the van pool. We have, as one of our conditions, stated that they need to show that on the plan. Show us where you're going to do it to the approval of our Metropolitan Transportation Planning staff. Mr. Taylor related to you that in discussing this with the applicant, they are working with the owner. I'm sure they'll be happy to report to you on the status of that situation and where that van pool area may be located on the property. And again, with that, you can see that staff is recommending approval subject to those four conditions on your report. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there questions? Ms. Phillips? I have a question about sidewalk connectivity. We're going to see new sidewalks constructed there at the intersection with Manowar on Tate's Creek as well as Manowar. Does the sidewalk extend up into those outlaws? Is there an existing sidewalk and also on the other side of the traffic interchange to the, what would that be, to the west of Manowar on the other side of Tate's Creek? Sidewalks do exist along Manowar, not along very much of Tate's Creek, so they will utilize the existing sidewalk that exists on Manowar and create this. There are sidewalks in front of the buildings. I don't believe that there are sidewalks throughout this area serving the outlots, which, of course, is somewhat outside the scope of their amendment. But on the other side of the – you talked about the site distance area where the sidewalk will be realigned. What about on the other side of that intersection? Yes. Yes, ma'am. I mean, our intent is to get a safer pedestrian access down into there, and certainly if that solution lent itself more favorably, we would be willing to work that out with them. We'll be working with traffic and with our pedestrian planner to attempt to create the best path. Are there sidewalks on that side of the interchange? Here? No, ma'am. Okay. Are there going to be sidewalks constructed? Not any further than past their frontage, which is a big box compliance requirement. So that's what they're doing, but they are proposing to bring it down into the development. Thank you. Are there additional questions for Mr. Martin? Not. Thank you very much. Kishner? My name is Bob Cornett with the Roberts Group. Thank you all for considering this plan today. We have worked quite a bit with staff and the different departments to try to get this plan cleaned up and address all the big box guidelines. As Tom said, the van pool kind of hit us at the subdivision subcommittee meeting. That was the first we had heard about mention of that. We have been communicating to the owners out of Houston, Texas, of the shopping center, We have Kroger's Real Estate Department has been trying to communicate by voicemail and by email about this vanpool issue. I don't know if they're just avoiding it or they haven't made a decision, or it may be spring break in Houston for all I know. But we have not been able to address that. We would hope that a vanpool parking lot would not kill a 40,000 square foot expansion project like this. Because if bamboo lots are that important, Kroger does own some shopping centers. And the Beaumont Shopping Center is a Kroger-owned center. So we have the old parking lot and the new parking lot that we could provide 10 to 15 or whatever spaces we really needed. And we feel like that is a good central location as well. Accessible demand of war for Frankfurt traffic, airport traffic. We think that would be another option, and we wouldn't want it to stop this center. Obviously, we're having parking issues anyway, or we wouldn't be asking for the transportation deduction to meet the parking requirements. It's a successful center, and everybody likes to see the parking lot full because that means people are shopping. But at the same time, we don't want to do anything that would hinder it, and we don't really know what the leases that the wine gardens might have with the other tenants. They may have approval rights of giving up some of their parking out in the parking lot as well. So we just hope that isn't a condition of approval. It's something that we will work to help resolve, even if at another location. the bank at the end of the Kroger will not just be an attached building it will actually have an internal connection you'll be able to shop in Kroger be able to do your banking in there it's not just going to be a teller window as we understand it that it will actually you could enter through the bank go into the Kroger and go back out so there is connectivity there There was some discussion about the height variations of the building walls. The handouts that you all have placed there, I apologize to staff for not getting them back to them any quicker. Those are a three-foot building elevation change, similar to the three-foot vertical wall, the setbacks in the vertical wall plane. So we talked it over with Mr. Saleh. the intent he felt like when the ordinance the big box guidelines were written the three foot should have been carried through in height as well as offsets in the building so um prover's architect did get those done last night so staff did not have an opportunity uh to see those before this meeting today uh be glad to answer any questions there's no sense in me standing here rambling are there questions from commission members i am just one on your transit is that that can be a covered transit stopper just to pull off for wheels well we we actually uh we we met with the transit authority and designed this long enough with tapers to where should they ever decide to take a full-size bus and they could so this the cutout will be large enough for any size transit vehicle they choose to use and we were proposing a covered shelter there as part of our project there is a the bike we don't want to inundate staff every time we make a little bitty change so as tom and chris indicated the sidewalk coming off of tates creek has been revised where it gets us into the parking lot. We've discussed the possibility of converting a few of the standard parking stalls to compact parking stalls to allow a sidewalk access route directly into the route is to come down, cross over into the island and then take a direct route to the front of the store and we would have a striped out area there as well. We did move the bike rack to the very front of the building in one of the landscape islands. Are there additional questions, Mr. Owens? Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Cornett, thank you for providing this. It provides a lot more detail, and it's something that's very helpful. Just curious, with this, you've got existing front elevation A. Remember, Lord, you've got proposed front elevation B. It looks like you're changing the whole front facade of the Kroger's building. Well, I don't know if we're actually changing the whole front. Well, there's going to be enhancements to all of it. This is the existing tower that fits on the front, and this is still the existing in the proposed. This panel will all be reworked down through here. And all of this end, obviously, completely reworked. We are proposing to put an awning cover that looks like the building over the pharmacy drive-through. We found that it is so much more comfortable when you pull up to a drive-through window for the pharmacy, window down and pouring down the rain. You have to keep rolling the windows up and down, waiting back and forth. So it's just more comfortable. Also helps with appearance, connectivity of the buildings as well. All of the new building will start from this point right here. So all of this will be new wall. All right. I've got to ask this. I'm just curious. With Chase Bank and concern in the last few years and bank defaults and so forth, is Kroger starting to finance banks? Does that mean Kroger's got more money than banks? No, I'm kidding. No, I'm kidding. No, but it is the situation that Kroger needs Chase's approval since Chase already has a bank in there and we'd like to move them. and it will make it more convenient for them because they have a remote drive-through further down on Antlot. So this way they get their drive-through and their building all together. There you go. Connected to inside of Kroger, and Kroger's gets to expand. Thank you, sir. Okay. Are there additional questions from any of the commission members? Not? Thank you. Thank you very much. You all. I don't think I see anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this. So if there are no further questions, we'll close this hearing and open it up for motion or for further discussion by the commission. Ms. Copeland. I am thinking outside the box. Outside the big box. We are asking for a change in elevation to the roof line, and I think we should be asking for second-story space, support space. If we're going to have a walkable, high-density pedestrian use center, Why do we keep doing ranch houses when we should be doing townhouse-type shopping centers, where the support facility of the Kroger, this big Kroger operation, lockers and meeting rooms, payroll division, that sort of thing can be on the second story, and they are not going to trigger that much parking. Instead, we're asking this poor lot to handle van parking. So right off the bat, don't we have a mixed message here? We've already having to limit the utility value of this lot in that we're turning it into a parking lot for a ride and park. Now, I'm all for ride and park. But if we're going to keep up that line of thinking, instead of just going to Beaumont, why can't they have the right to lease 20 spaces at a church down Tate's Creek and put the park and ride there? And then they have less constraints on this shopping center that was built as a shopping center, not a park and ride lot. So I think we're sending, I think we've got the right idea, but doing it the wrong way. I think we should be, instead of asking for fakie roof lines, which if you studied Keats and his poetry, Truth and Beauty, why are we asking for a fakie roof line when we could really accomplish the same thing with just popping up and having some honest second-story space that is support storage, kind of like the attic of the Kroger. And why are we asking for a park-and-ride van lot on this high-density area? And as far as the parking being in the wrong place, it's sunken parking. It's great parking. It's got a berm. You just look right over those tops of those cars and focus right in. I mean, I think we've got the carpet for the horse. I don't want to see them suffer from the van, park and ride idea, which is good, but it doesn't fit this site. I think we ought to be able to work it out for them. Are there other commissioners who have comments or discussion? Mr. Owens. Thank you. I guess maybe this is a question for staff as much as anything. Following up with what Ms. Copeland was saying, the recommendations here now, identify a van pool parking area on the site to the approval of MPO, is that an actual requirement? that they have it or if they come back and say it's just not possible, where does that leave them at this point in time? Mr. Owens, it is a condition that we have currently placed on the big box compliance report. So it would be something they would have to do if you make your finding and it includes all of these conditions. If you, for instance, then wanted to resolve it and it could not be resolved, then yes, they would have a problem with proceeding forward and would perhaps have to revisit this body in order to resolve that issue. Currently, as it stands, it is a condition we're recommending. I kind of agree with Ms. Copeland. That is, the parking is constrained there to begin with. And I think everybody recognizes that. and I hate to put this burden on them. It sounds like they're attempting, and if they can make it happen, I'd like to see it. But by the same token, I don't think I'm ready to access the deal if they cannot do it either. Would there be any recommendations on how to revise this recommendation? If the commission did indeed find that that was a condition not suitable for this property, staff would certainly be happy to take Kroger up on their offer to try to facilitate van pools elsewhere. Because granted, it is something we want to encourage in this community and very much appreciate when our corporate entities are supportive of that sort of thing. Okay. Let's see what the commissioners think. Are there other comments or discussion from any of the Commission members? Ms. Cravens? Yeah, I agree with some of their comments. And we're asking a tenant of the shopping center to affect maybe other stores in the shopping center by this. I don't know how we can ask one tenant to do park and ride or this van pool thing when they don't control the whole shopping center. They only control their space. Ms. Copeland? Yes, how many parking ride places do we need? How many? How many? In other words, what's the park and ride tax? Our NPO staff said that they typically use one 16-passenger van that meets in a location and the vehicles park there. So he said anywhere from 10 to 16 spaces, something along the lines that could accommodate the vehicles for people that meet there and take the van. So 16 parking spaces? At the most. I think that was considered on the high end. The van's not always full every time they go somewhere. I think somewhere between 10 and 16 was his comment at the subdivision committee. Do you think it would be okay with the MPO that they rent 16 spaces from a church down the road? I couldn't speak for the MPO staff and their preference. Do they insist that we do this service at a shopping center? No, I don't think it was an insistence. It was more of a request to see if it was something that could work here. Oh, okay. So Beaumont might be a trade-off. I think we look for it any time we have a large facility with lots of parking to see if we can utilize it in some other fashion. So I don't think it's unique to this shopping center, no. But it is something we will probably be bringing up on most of our big box plans and shopping center plans when they come through. Okay. Okay. Are there other comments or questions? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. I do have a question of clarification. Do we need to include both recommendations? Can we include both recommendations into one motion? Can this all be done in one motion? You will need to make a finding on the big box guidelines as part of your motion on the development plan. Okay. Thank you. Do I hear a motion from the commission members? Madam Chair. Mr. Owens. I'm still at the point I don't want to box these fine folks in a corner. And I'm not sure exactly which is the best way to do it, looking at the recommendations where it reads identify van pool parking area on site. I don't know if it would be acceptable to everyone considered to make it read, identify a van pool parking area on-site or off-site. I don't know if the MPO would like that or not. I'm tempted to go that way with it. And I'm also tempted just to ask the applicant to work with the MPO to attempt to locate another site that's suitable for everybody and eliminate the recommendation altogether. So I guess to move on instead of rambling. I don't know if it's resolvable, particularly with the MPO not here. Do you want one motion for both? It really doesn't make any difference whether it's one or two, so long as you clearly adopt findings with respect to the big box compliance. Okay. And I believe I can speak for the MPO since they work for the division planning as well. This is something that we were trying to explore. This is not a line in the sand on this plan. You can leave it in as resolve or you could just take it out, but note this conversation that they are working to see if they can get approval. If the commission feels that this is an inappropriate location, you could then just mention off the record that we ought to work to try to find another location. I think that would be agreeable. Okay. I would agree. I think that's the way to go. And much, you know, with what Mr. Cravens was saying, each site is different, and I'm not concerned about setting a precedent here. As they just mentioned, and I believe everybody recognizes, Beaumont probably has a whole lot more parking than the Tates Creek Center does. So my recommendation would be finding that DP 2011-27, that the big box design guidelines are in agreement, their findings are in agreement with the and follow the staff recommendations for approval, eliminating number B and leaving only A, C, and D as the three recommendations. And then also approval of Plan 2011-27, Tates Creek Center, a.k.a. Bella Woods Shopping Center, amended with the 11 conditions, deleting number 12, I think, as it relates to the van pool a lot. And let me continue asking that they have to continue to work to find other locations as well. I think everybody would appreciate that. We now have a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second? Second. Second by Mr. Cravens, motion by Mr. Owens. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 5, Item I is ZDP 2007-81 of Viley Heights Subdivision Unit 3D. This is a final development plan. It was associated with a zone change, located the property on the corner of Alexandria Drive and Devonport Drive. There's apartments to the rear and this direction to the west. On the other side of Alexandria, you just recently had a zone change on the McMeakin property from P1 to B1. This plan that you see before you is an existing building with the existing parking. It's a little over 9,000 square feet. There are 58 parking spaces on the property. There were no physical changes associated with this plan. at the time of the zone change. You may recall that this body voted against the zone change. Subsequently, the council did approve the zone change. The plan was brought back to you and approved shortly thereafter. However, it was never certified by the applicant. The discussion with the zone change and McMakin property in this area raised the issue of how this building was being utilized. With that, staff brought this plan back before you today on this agenda for a re-approval. On your agenda, you can see there never were many conditions on this plan since no physical changes were being made to the property. So you see 11 conditions. It was originally recommended by approval by your subdivision committee, and subsequently they recommended re-approval as well. The only change in that recommendation is item 11. At the original approval, the 92 floodplain maps were the enforced. They were the measure of enforcement that we used. We now have new maps. So we did modify that condition to require that they place the current floodplain information on the property. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there questions? Ms. Copeland. Mr. Martin, this plan was first before us as a body in 2007. So none of us have seen it, right? You have. You have. So you're all responsible. Well, anyway. I haven't seen it before. But anyway, tell me again just exactly what happened. They, we as a body, and only two of us were here, did not approve this, but they took it on? Yes, ma'am. To be very precise, this body disapproved the zone change and postponed the development plan, which is standard in that situation. Subsequently, the council approved the zone change. So the plan was then brought back to the Planning Commission, the development plan, for approval, which it was approved then by this body. Now you see it before you for re-approval because, again, the applicant failed to bring in a Mylar to staff to have it reviewed and certified. So he never made any of these cleanup conditions? They never addressed any of the conditions. They never brought a plan into a snowman. So the Mylar never? Okay. Now, are we seeing a plan today with the conditions cleaned up? Several of the conditions have been addressed on this plan that you see before you today. Yes, ma'am. Obviously, sign-off conditions remain. Okay. So which ones have been improved? They've corrected the title. They've added tree protection, uses of the building. Retail parking has been added. And they have not, unfortunately, changed their floodplain information. It still has the old information on it. So they still haven't got a clean plan? Not completely. No, ma'am. There's still a few conditions. And I would add, again, the standard sign-off conditions can't be addressed until they request those sign-offs. I understand one through five cannot be done. But do they denote the uses of the building and the site statistics? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So they still haven't. What about the delete the signs from the plan? I don't believe they've done that completely. I'll have to. So they've had five years and they still are missing two things. Yes, ma'am. Again, I believe part of that situation, and I'm not here to speak on their behalf, but it's an out-of-town surveyor who wasn't used to working with us, and I believe that their representative can explain that perhaps it slipped through the cracks. I really can't answer why they haven't addressed the issues. Okay, well, I'll be talking to Mr. Murphy about that because in subdivision, you made it very plain to them that they needed to have a current floodplain information on the plan. And they will certainly have to do that before it can be certified. Well, or maybe before we approve it. Are there additional questions from commission members? Yeah. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand what all has been said here as far as getting back to this point for certification of a plan. Educate me a little bit, I guess. This did change from a P1 zone? It has changed from a P1 to a B1. Yes. B1. Okay. Without a certified plan, can businesses under a B-1 zone go into this building? They should receive a certificate of occupancy from building inspection to occupy the building. And to be able to do that, shouldn't this plan be certified? Yes, sir. And it is staff's understanding that was one of the problems that building inspection relayed concerning this property. So building inspection knows that there's businesses in there that don't have... I cannot speak to that. I will say that we did communicate with building inspection due to manpower shortages currently and demands that no one could attend this meeting. There have been, according to building inspections, some enforcement actions on this property. In fact, I have letters, copies of the letters that affect the enforcement actions were for activities outside of the building in the parking lot. Okay. Well, and my only concern would be the businesses that's in there now going by there this morning. I don't know if there's eight or ten possible businesses in there. One of them was a real estate company. Everything else appeared retail to me, which I think would fall under the B zone and not a professional zone for sure. And at some point I'd like to hear from Bill Inspection on this to see how they're getting in there or why something isn't being done in the meantime. I understand, sir. Yes, sir. I understand the delays on this. I'm not necessarily happy that it's been four years or three and a half, but I understand. I'm okay with this plan, but I would like to hear from building inspection at some point on this. Additional questions? Ms. Phillips? I don't know that this is even germane, but I'm trying to jog my memory. This property Tracy presented, and it was an applicant for a nightclub where the property had been used as a nightclub? I don't believe so, no. There was another property in that area that had been used as a nightclub, but not this particular property. I think it's the area where the steakhouse used to be and the bookstore and that sort of thing across Alexandria where the nightclub was present. Are there additional questions or comments? Mr. Owens. I'm sorry. Tom, you know, with us taking this long to get here to be certified, are there any checklists in place to say, okay, 60 days has gone by, we haven't seen the development plan come back to us, 90 days has gone by, anything like that? No, sir. The ordinance requires that they get it certified within one year of your approval. else that approval expires and they have to come back to you for a re-approval. Okay. Which, as you know, re-approvals do happen. You see them. Right. Yeah. I just don't normally see businesses go in in the meantime. Thank you. There are other questions? Not. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Petitioner. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent O.B. Wallen, who is the owner of the property. And I'll give you a little additional information on this property. He came through this planning commission for a zone change. Mr. Wallen represented himself at that time. And the proposed zone change from P1 to B1 was recommended disapproval by a 5 to 4 vote of the planning commission, 5 to 4. He went on to the council. I did represent him at the city council. And we had a hearing there, and the city council voted to approve the zone change. I think, as I recall, the vote was 12 to 2 at the city council to approve it. You all, as is the custom, you all had postponed indefinitely the development plan with the understanding that if the council approved it, it would have to come back to you. The council had acted on October 18, 2007, and the plan was back on your agenda on November 8, 2007. So three weeks later, it was back to you for approval and did get approval. I was not involved in the approval when it came back. In checking the minutes of that, nobody was here representing the applicant on that date. He has an out-of-town surveyor, Tony Justice of Georgetown, who is a very good surveyor, but he's not before you every day. And it was approved with the conditions that you have in front of you. And I can only assume, I'm just making an assumption here, though, that once it was approved, the staff assumed the surveyor would bring in the corrections to be made. But the surveyor, or they assumed the surveyor would be contacting them. The surveyor didn't contact them because he didn't know when it had been approved. So the changes were never made. And your approval expired. So we needed to come back to you for reapproval. So that's how we're here. At the subdivision committee, Ms. Copeland, I did relate to you that if we didn't have the cleanup provisions taken care of, we would be agreeable to a one-month postponement, which we still are if you don't feel that the conditions have been sufficiently complied with. Mr. Justice did bring in a revised plan earlier this week with the staff, which attempted to address the non-sign-off issues, you know, the 1 through 5 are sign-off issues, but 6 through 11, and apparently from my discussion, from what I heard of the discussion up here just now, they've all been complied with perhaps except 11 that does not have the correct floodplain, did not get the current floodplain information on there, which if you want to make that a condition, we will comply with that, or if you want to postpone it and have us come back. We're certainly agreeable to that as well because we understand where you're coming from on that. As far as businesses going in, I did, Mr. Owens, I did talk to Mr. Wallen earlier in the week, and there had been enforcement activities on the property, which, as Mr. Martin related to you, I think all of them relate to outdoor activities on there. I know when I was representing the one across the street in front of you a couple months ago, you all, the staff, had noted itinerant vendors setting up, especially on weekends, on the parking lots of all these stores around here. And I know Mr. McMacken, who that was his own change. He didn't want that and was trying to prevent that. And I talked to Mr. Vaughan, and he said that he had had trouble with that too, with people coming in on weekends, setting up tables and trucks and that sort of thing, and he has worked with the police department. He has put signs up there to stop it. He has people now stopping in to check the property on the weekends and feels that the situation has been taken care of with the help of the police department. He also has problems with people using his dumpster who are not tenants in the building, dropping off trash here in his dumpster. He is working on that as well so that the dumpster does not overflow. And there are B-1 businesses in this building, Mr. Owen. And I talked to him about that. He said right now he's got businesses in there. You saw the real estate company he mentioned to me, and I'd written down some others. There's an accountant in there and a money transfer office, which I think are all allowed in P1. There used to be, and I can't remember if there's still a church there, which is allowed in P1 as well. I don't know if it's still there or not. There used to be a radio station there too, which is also allowed in P1. But he did say that there have been some businesses that moved in, including a used clothing store, ice cream shop, a boot store. And he said his understanding was all those businesses had obtained certificates of occupancy to move in. Now, I have not been able to verify that, so I cannot, I'm not testifying to you that there are or are not. But I can tell you that Mr. Ballin is aware of the situation out there, is aware of the requirements, and has done his best to try to make sure they're complied with. And we apologize for this not getting certified. I think it was due to an out-of-town surveyor who I do want to emphasize is a very good surveyor, but just doesn't practice in front of you every day. and there not being people assuming there would be communication back and forth, and there wasn't communication back and forth, so it did get it expired, and we did have to come back to you. So with that, again, I think the revised plan we brought in did comply with most of the cleanup conditions. If you want to carry it over a month, we're agreeable to that. If you want to approve it today, obviously we're agreeable to that too. So we'll leave it up to you, and thank you for consideration of this development plan. Are there any questions for the petitioner, Ms. Copeland? Yes, Mr. Murphy. Hypothetical. Let's say that we ask for a postponement so we can get to Mr. Owens' issues straightened out, and we get the floodplain and the signs straightened out, and we have an approvable plan. Then Mr. Waller still has a year to record or get the certificate of occupancy. Since he's already been driving this property illegally for three and a half years, why can't we, say, get a certificate of occupancy within 30 days? Is that okay with you? In other words, we'll give him a temporary license for 30 days, de facto, but otherwise we're just extending another year for him to go get a certificate of occupancy because we've just made legal this plan. I don't think there would be a problem with that. I would ask for 60 days, and the reason I'm doing that is because on the sign-offs with the personnel crunch they have right now, sometimes if there's one person in the division who can give a sign-off and if they're not there or not available, sometimes these things you get in a crunch. and I'd hate to have him just expire again and come back to you just because there wasn't able to be that communication with the sign-off person there. I do want to emphasize, I mean, you said he was operating illegally. I don't want to agree to that because I don't think he has been operating illegally. I think he's been in compliance with all requirements of the B1 zone. I do want to mention to you that there was no change to this building made as a result of the zone changes exactly as it was before on the previous development plan. And I don't feel he has been operating illegally. Maybe you feel differently, and obviously everybody's entitled to their opinion on it. But I understand the situation that's before you all. I understand the situation he's in, and if you want to impose a condition that the plan be certified within a certain number of days, I think we'd be agreeable to that. I would just ask for a little more than 30 days just because I know how things happen and how sometimes people are unavailable to sign off when the deadline comes down. So I'd ask for 60 days if that's possible. Or you could come back and ask us for more time. Yes, we could, but you all have long lead times on your application procedure. I can't just call up the day before to the staff and get back on your agenda for the next day. I have to, I don't know what the deadline for that would be either. Ms. Bidey. I understand what Ms. Copeland is saying and what she's asking, but I guess this question is for the staff. Does the commission have the purview to give a timeline for certification of occupancy? I would be, I have not researched it, but I would be very concerned when the zoning ordinance specifies how much time a developer has to get a plan certified. The fact that he has agreed to this makes it a little less problematic, but again, he's only agreed to an extended amount of time, not just 30 days. But over his objections, I would certainly say you cannot put on one developer more constraint than what is set forth in the zoning ordinance to apply uniformly to all developers in getting their plans certified. Okay, thank you. Now, with that being clarified, Mr. Owens' comments on needing additional information, to me, if I understood you correctly, maybe this just simply means a postponement until we have all of our facts together and then taking a vote opposed to trying to give some stipulations around this. and I'm still a little confused on how this occurred from 2007 and then didn't get certified, but I'm learning. But, Mr. Owens, is that what you were asking, and is postponement a better way to go than trying to make stipulations? Because I understand where Ms. Copeland and Mr. Owens is coming from with this. As far as my opinion is concerned, Ms. Spadey, one, receiving clarification from building inspection on whether these do have certificate of occupancy or not, I think, you know, this plan could go either way. It doesn't matter to me. It could go forward today and I could get clarification later from building inspection. to keep it as simple as possible. With Mr. Murphy offering a postponement to get this cleaned up to everyone's satisfaction, if he's still willing to do that, I would suggest going with that and just postponing it. This has been going on for three and a half, four years, another 30 or 60 days. You know, nothing's going to change in that length of time. And let's do it. Let's have it totally clean and, you know, let it get certified at that time. I think that would be the easiest way to do it. Ms. Faddy? I'm sorry. Does anyone else have any? Yeah, I do. Mr. Holmes. I was going to add, with the applicant agreeing or offering the solution to postpone this, I think what's before us is the zoning development plan. We need to either approve it or disapprove it based on the conditions, and it's apparent that they don't have the conditions completed, so I don't have a problem in postponing that. The enforcement of those businesses, I think, is the building inspection enforcement officers' responsibility, and that's up to them to decide whether they're in there legally or not. I don't know. And there's nothing been offered here today to say they are or they're not. So I would agree to, you know, let's postpone this and bring back a plan that meets all the conditions that the staff had identified and let the enforcement officer building inspection address the enforcement issues. Are there other comments? Great. Ms. Copeland. I'm ready to make a motion. I move for postponement of ZDP 2007-81, one month postponement. I have a motion by Ms. Copeland, second by Mr. Holmes. Question? Question. Excuse me. Did I hear Mr. Murphy possibly suggest 60 days? What would be your liking? 30 would be fine. Oh, okay. Postponement. It was 60 days if there was a limit on certification after your action. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You're not asking that that be placed in the motion, are you? Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Motion. Are there any other comments, questions? Not. We have a motion on the floor. It's time to vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. The final item on our agenda today are the performance bonds and letters of credit. I believe everyone has a copy in front of them. And the Chair will entertain a motion regarding the bonds at this time. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of the release and call of bonds dated April 14, 2011, as written on the memorandum. Motion's been made by Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Are there any commission members who have comments or things they would like to bring up before the commission? Not are there any additional staff items? Madam Chair, we would just point out to you that we did put at your space a letter from the Fayette County, representative of the Fayette County Public Schools. that invites the commission members to participate in a focus group meeting for selection of a new superintendent for Fayette County Schools. I wanted to point out that we had passed that information along to you. Okay, thank you. Are there other staff comments or questions? We do have a work session next week. We'll have a work session next week. Yes, indeed. If not, do I hear a motion? There's no one in the audience to have any further comments, so I will entertain a motion for adjournment. Motion's made and seconded. All in favor, aye. Aye. Motion carries. I'm not even going to ask for a no. I'm sorry.