# Planning Commission Meeting - June 9, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 9, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2046 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2046?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-06-09 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 11,566 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 June 9, 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. The Commission considered 10 agenda items, taking 9 motions and votes, and heard 4 public comments during the session. Of the items presented, 8 were approved and 1 was postponed to a later date. The approved projects included Kirklevington North (AMD), three units of Meadow Oaks (Ashford Oaks), Ingleside Apartments (Red Mile Village), South Farm Marketplace (AMD #5), Professional Park (formerly General Mills/Shoney's Property), and Manchester Development (AMD). The Lederer Property (AMD) was postponed for further consideration. ## Attendance **Present:** - Carolyn Richardson - Mike Cravens - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Marie Copeland - Mike Owens - William Wilson - Eunice Beatty - Carla Blanton - Patrick Brewer **Absent:** - Ed Holmes - Derek Paulsen **Late:** - Marie Copeland ## Votes and Decisions **Postponement of DP 2011-40: Gess Property, Unit 1** [timestamp: 00:10:01] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Eunice Beatty. The board voted by voice to postpone this item to June 23, 2011. All nine board members voted in favor. **Postponement of DP 2011-41: Blackford Property, Phase 1, Unit 5 & Phase 3** [timestamp: 00:11:35] Motion by William Wilson, seconded by Mike Cravens. The board voted by voice to postpone this item to June 23, 2011. All nine board members voted in favor. **Postponement of DP 2011-52: Beaumont Farm, Unit 1 Sec. 4, Lot 4** [timestamp: 00:12:42] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by William Wilson. The board voted by voice to postpone this item to July 14, 2011. All nine board members voted in favor. **Approval of Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 00:17:05] Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. The board voted by voice to approve consent agenda items, excluding Beaumont Farm and Lederer Property. All nine board members voted in favor. **Reapproval of PLAN 2008-13F and PLAN 2008-14F: Denton Farm, Inc., Units 3A and 3B** [timestamp: 00:22:54] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Eunice Beatty. The board voted by voice to reapprove these plans, contingent upon Urban Forester's approval of required street tree information. All nine board members voted in favor. **Approval of DP 2011-53: Professional Park** [timestamp: 00:49:43] Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The board voted by voice to approve this development plan with 14 conditions. All nine board members voted in favor. **Approval of DP 2011-49: Manchester Development (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:57:32] Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mike Owens. The board voted by voice to approve this development plan with multiple conditions. All nine board members voted in favor. **Postponement of DP 2011-56: Lederer Property (AMD)** [timestamp: 01:29:57] Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Mike Owens. The board voted by voice to postpone this item to resolve issues with dumpster location and construction. All nine board members voted in favor. **Approval of Bond Release and Call** [timestamp: 01:30:30] Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Mike Cravens. The board voted by voice to approve release and call of bonds as per memorandum. All nine board members voted in favor. ## Public Comment Four members of the public provided comments on the proposed project during the meeting. **Marie Copeland** [timestamp: 01:10:10] expressed concern about the rear-facing exit of the Lederer Property, noting that headlights from vehicles would shine into nearby homes, particularly during night events. She suggested repositioning the exit to serve as an entrance instead, citing neighborly considerations. **Jim Gallimore** [timestamp: 01:12:34] raised a traffic safety issue regarding the proposed exit-only access on East 3rd Street. He identified a sight triangle problem created by columns at the location and recommended converting the access to an entrance only to improve visibility and safety. **Lynn Roche-Phillips** [timestamp: 01:21:15] raised a procedural concern, noting that the applicant had proceeded with construction before obtaining Planning Commission approval for square footage increases. She characterized this as a major amendment that requires prior review and approval. **Carla Blanton** [timestamp: 01:27:48] addressed the proposed placement of a dumpster in a public alley, stating that this would set a problematic precedent. She advocated for keeping trash on private property and urged the Commission to reject the current dumpster location. ## Appointments Matt Wilson was appointed to the Planning Commission. ## Contested Items The June 9, 2011 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement: **Dumpster Location in Public Alley** Commission members raised concerns about allowing a dumpster to be placed in a public right-of-way. The core dispute centered on procedural grounds—commissioners worried that approving this encroachment would set an unwanted precedent. The applicant had not obtained prior approval for this placement, and members questioned whether unapproved construction should be permitted to proceed under these conditions. **Unapproved Construction and Square Footage Increase** A procedural dispute emerged regarding the applicant's decision to move forward with construction and increase the project's square footage without first securing Planning Commission approval. Commission members emphasized that major amendments to a project require prior approval, and questioned why the applicant had proceeded without following this required process. This represented a fundamental disagreement over whether the applicant had properly followed established procedures before beginning work. **Exit-Only Access on East 3rd Street** The most heated discussion involved a rear-facing exit on East 3rd Street. The disagreement centered on both safety and neighborhood impact concerns. Specifically, commissioners and staff debated whether vehicle headlights from the exit would negatively affect nearby homes. The dispute also involved a fundamental question about the access point's function: whether it should serve as an entrance, an exit, or both. Staff and commissioners were divided on the appropriate configuration, with concerns raised about the neighborly implications of directing vehicle traffic in a particular direction. ## Kirklevington North (AMD) (7/31/11) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2011-56F **Overview** The meeting addressed a proposal to subdivide one lot into two parcels at Kirklevington North. [timestamp: 00:13:45] **Key Speakers** - Chris Taylor - Bill Sallee **Outcome** The plan was approved via consent agenda, subject to the following conditions: - Approval from the Urban County Engineer - Approval from the Traffic Engineer - Approval from Building Inspection - Approval from e911 - Approval from the Urban Forester - Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality ## Meadow Oaks, Unit 1-A (Ashford Oaks) (8/31/11) **Project Identifier:** PLAN 2008-138F **Overview** The applicant requested a one-year extension for the remaining portion of the plat for Meadow Oaks, Unit 1-A (Ashford Oaks). [timestamp: 00:14:16] **Key Speaker** Bill Sallee presented on this matter. **Staff Recommendation and Outcome** Staff recommended approval of the extension request with an additional condition: the Urban Forester's approval of required street tree information must be obtained. The request was approved. ## Meadow Oaks, Unit 1-B (Ashford Oaks) (8/31/11) **Project Identifier:** PLAN 2008-139F **Overview** The applicant requested a one-year extension for the remaining portion of the plat for Meadow Oaks, Unit 1-B (Ashford Oaks). [timestamp: 00:14:46] **Key Speaker** Bill Sallee presented on this agenda item. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the extension request with an additional condition: the Urban Forester's approval of required street tree information must be obtained. **Outcome** The request was approved. ## Meadow Oaks, Unit 1-C (Ashford Oaks) (8/31/11) **Identifier:** PLAN 2008-140F The applicant requested a one-year extension for the plat on this project. [timestamp: 00:15:22] Staff recommended approval of the extension with an additional condition requiring Urban Forester's approval of required street tree information. The item was approved. ## Ingleside Apartments (Red Mile Village) (AMD) (7/31/11) **Identifier:** DP 2011-48 **Overview** This agenda item addressed an amendment to the Ingleside Apartments project at Red Mile Village. The proposal involved reducing open space and adding 6 parking spaces to the development. **Presentation and Discussion** Chris Taylor presented this item to the body [timestamp: 00:15:56]. **Outcome** The plan was approved via consent agenda. The approval included conditions requiring approvals from multiple departments and officials: - Urban County Engineer - Traffic Engineer - Building Inspection - Additional specified parties The amendment was granted with these departmental conditions in place to ensure compliance with relevant engineering, traffic, and building standards. ## South Farm Marketplace (AMD #5) (7/31/11) **Overview** This agenda item (DP 2011-50) addressed a plan to revise use and parking for Lot 4 at South Farm Marketplace. [timestamp: 00:16:34] **Presentation and Approval** Chris Taylor presented the item. The plan was approved via consent agenda with the following conditions: - Approval from the Urban County Engineer - Approval from the Traffic Engineer - Approval from Building Inspection - Additional approvals from other relevant departments as required **Outcome** The revision was approved. ## Kirklevington North (AMD) (7/31/11) **Proposal:** DP 2011-51 **Outcome:** Approved Chris Taylor presented the discussion on the Kirklevington North rezoning proposal. [timestamp: 00:17:05] The plan involved rezoning the property to P-1 classification. The approval was granted subject to conditions, including rezoning approval from the Urban County Council and approvals from multiple departments. ## Lederer Property (AMD) (8/9/11) **Identifier:** DP 2011-56 **Discussion Summary** The board discussed a proposed amendment to the Lederer Property development plan. The project included several modifications: adding an access point, increasing the building size, revising the parking layout, and relocating the dumpster. **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and Roger Ladenberger participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Concerns Raised** The proposal faced significant concerns that prevented approval. The primary issue centered on the proposed dumpster location, which would be positioned in a public alley. Additionally, unapproved construction work was identified as a concern during the review process. **Outcome** The agenda item was postponed. The board did not approve the amendment at this time, deferring further consideration to allow the applicant to address the raised concerns. **Transcript Reference** [timestamp: 01:29:57] ## Professional Park (Formerly General Mills/Shoney's Property) (AMD) (7/31/11) **Agenda Item:** DP 2011-53 The board discussed a development plan for Professional Park, the formerly General Mills/Shoney's property, which proposed to increase building size and revise parking circulation [timestamp: 00:25:10]. **Key Speakers** Bill Sallee and Brody Glenn presented and discussed the proposal. **Proposal Details** The plan included modifications to increase the building size and reconfigure the parking circulation pattern for the site. **Conditions of Approval** The plan was approved with 14 conditions, which addressed: - Tree protection measures - Access easement documentation - Signage for rear orientation **Outcome** The proposal was approved by the board. ## Manchester Development (AMD) (7/31/11) **Identifier:** DP 2011-49 **Overview** The board discussed a proposal to add property 948 Manchester Street to an adaptive reuse project. [timestamp: 00:51:07] **Key Speaker** Chris Evans presented on this agenda item. **Outcome** The plan was approved with 11 conditions. The conditions included requirements for parking and zoning compliance, among other specifications. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone DP 2011-40: Gess Property, Unit 1 to June 23, 2011 - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone DP 2011-41: Blackford Property, Phase 1, Unit 5 & Phase 3 to June 23, 2011 - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone DP 2011-52: Beaumont Farm, Unit 1 Sec. 4, Lot 4 to July 14, 2011 - **Motion** — passed: Approve Consent Agenda items (excluding Beaumont Farm and Lederer Property) - **Motion** — passed: Reapprove PLAN 2008-13F and PLAN 2008-14F: Denton Farm, Inc., Units 3A and 3B - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2011-53: Professional Park (Formerly General Mills/Shoney’s Property) with 14 conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2011-49: Manchester Development (AMD) - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone DP 2011-56: Lederer Property (AMD) to resolve issues with dumpster location and construction - **Motion** — passed: Approve release and call of bonds as per memorandum --- ## Full transcript I don't know how you sound you go Little miss, little miss, little miss, can't be wrong What you gonna do is get to another one that needs to have rock and roll Oh, little miss, little miss, little miss, little miss, can't be wrong No, no, no, no, no, no, no Oh, you can't be wrong, oh, you can't be wrong You can't be wrong Oh, let's get it done, let's get it done, let's get it done, let's get it done, let's get it done, let's get it done, let's get it done, let's get it done. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh The End Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Are there anyone in the room who has a postponement or withdrawal? Madam Chairman. Yes. several plans to bring to your attention. The first item is on page three of your agenda at the bottom of the page under development plans. DP 2011-40, guest property, unit one, that's for property located at 480 Childsburg Road. We have received both email and verbal request from the applicant to postpone that plan for two weeks, which will be your June 23rd meeting. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to this postponement? Is there anyone on the commission? If not, then the Chair will entertain a motion for DP2011-40 Guest Property Unit 1 for postponement to June 23rd meeting. Madam Chairman. Yes. Move postponement of DP2011-40 for two weeks to June 23rd. I have a motion by Mr. Cravens. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ms. Beatty. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chairman. The second one staff would like to bring to your attention is on page four of your agenda. Item B, Development Plan 2011-41, Blackford Property, Phase 1, Unit 5, and Phase 3, Amended. This is for property located on the Blackford Parkway. The applicant has again, both by email and verbally, requested a two-week postponement again to your June 23rd meeting. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is there anyone in the audience who has objection to this postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion then. Mr. Wilson has moved that we postponed to June 23, DP 2011-41 Blackford property. Is there a second? Second. The motion has been seconded by Mr. Cravens. All in favor? Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. And Madam Chairman, third and last item staff has to bring to your attention is on page six of your agenda. Item G, DP 2011-52, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4. This is for property located at 3064 Beaumont Center Circle. We have received a written request from the applicant to postpone for one month, which will be your July 14th meeting. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to that postponement? Is there anyone on the commission? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion for one month postponement to our July 14th meeting for DP2011-51, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4. Madam Chairman. Mr. Craven. Move postponement of DP 2011-52 for one month to July 14th. Is there a second? Motion made by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Does that take care of it? Thank you, Mr. Martin. We'll now move on to our subdivision items. Are there no discussion items? Mr. Salley? Madam Chair, I'm very glad to report that most of your remaining agenda items do qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda. The first appears as the very first item on your agenda, page 1, item A, an amended final subdivision plat, plan 2011-56F, Kirk Levington North amended. This plat is for property at 858 Malibu Drive and is recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. There are three subdivision plans recommended for approval of a one-year extension by your staff on the consent agenda. The first appears on page 2, item D, Plan 2008-138F, Meadow Oaks Unit 1A, also known as Ashford Oaks. Also the next item on your agenda, page 3, item E, Plan 2008-139F, Meadow Oaks Unit 1B. And a correlating plat, page 3, item F, for Plan 2008-140F, Meadow Oaks Unit 1C. All three of these plats have an address of 3414 Feliciana Lane. There are several development plans also appearing on your consent agenda. The first appears on page 4, item C of your meeting agenda, an amended final development plan, DP 2011-48, Ingleside Apartments, also known as Red Mile Village, for property at 1035 Red Mile Road. On page 5, item E of your meeting agenda, another amended development plan, DP 2011-50, South Farm Marketplace, Amendment No. 5. This is for property at 116 Marketplace Drive. On page 6, item F of your meeting agenda, another plan on the consent agenda is DP 2011-51, Kirk Levington North amended, also for property at 858 Malibu Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda on page 6, item G, is also on your consent agenda, DP 2011-52, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4, for property located at 3064 Beaumont Center Circle. Beaumont Center Circle, pardon me. The last item on your consent agenda appears on page 6, item I, of your meeting agenda. This is DP 2011-56, an amended final development plan for the letter or property located at 312 North Limestone Street. All five of these development plans have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. At this time, the Commission can consider approval of the consent agenda items unless a Commission member or a member of the audience would like one of the items removed for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to have one of these heard today? Seeing no one, is there anyone on the commission that would like to pull? I wanted to point out that the fourth item under final development plans, the Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4, we just postponed that, didn't we? Page 6. We did. Thank you very much. I apologize for not catching that. I would like to, so we'll scratch that from the consent agenda. And if the commission agrees, I'd like to see the letter of property and pull that from the consent agenda, please. Okay. Are there others that we'd like to pull to be heard? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion. Madam Chair. Mr. Owens. I'll move for approval of the consent agenda as read with the exception of the Beaumont Farms and Letteral property. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made by Ms. Irwin, second by Ms. Phillips. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, please vote electronically or opposed to vote electronically. Motion carries. At this time then we'll get ready for the first subdivision plan. Thank you. Good afternoon. The first two items today are under item B and item C under subdivision plans at the bottom of page 1 and the middle of page 2. It is Denton Farms, Unit 3A, Lots 31 through 34, as well as Denton Farms, Unit 3B, Lots 27 through 30. These are two plans that have been submitted for re-approval. They would have been eligible for your consent agenda. However, their original approval date was more than three years prior to this date. And so the staff is up to present to you today. The purpose of these plans was to redo the lotting lot lines for eight lots to create a ninth lot. Each of the lots got a little bit narrower on Unit 3A. There was no new lot, just the changing of the lot lines. The extra lot was on lot 3B. Again, I've skipped over where exactly we are, but this is Richmond Road, out across from Jacobson Park. This is the Ellerslie property in Denton Farms. The townhouses up against Richmond Road are right up here in this area. You come in off of Ellerslie Park to Ormsby Place. It is the first street here, Summerslie Place, that backs up to the reservoir. Again, it was eight approved lots at the time, and they have, when this originally came in, was requesting one additional lot and a changing of the lot lines to yield one additional lot. Again, the staff and subdivision committee did recommend approval of these plans, subject to 11 conditions each, and the staff does recommend re-approval at this time. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Commission members, have any questions at this point? Just for clarification, thank you. We've looked at another section of this subdivision. Yes, ma'am. Would that have been the cul-de-sac to the left on the plat or closer to Richmond Road? Just recently, we've looked at this cul-de-sac here on Branham Park, and there's been other plans that have been approved or altered around the cemetery a year or two ago. Those platts have not come in yet. It was just development plan amendments. We'll see platts for those in the future. But recently, it was right in here. Thank you, Chris. Petitioner? I don't believe anyone's here. Oh, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Sorry. Can't see the plan. I don't know that we can make it any larger. If you'd like to come up and look at the plan, you're certainly welcome to do that. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this? If not, are there – I said discussion. I will close the hearing then. Is there any discussion or questions from the Commission? If not, the Chair will – and I believe that we can take these as two – both of them together. I believe that's correct. Yes, okay. So this can be done in one motion. Okay. Madam Chairman, I'd like to move approval of Plan 2008-13F Denton Farm and also So Plan 2008-14F, Denton Fund. Move approval. Motion by Mr. Cravens. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ms. Spady. Any further discussion? Madam Chair. I presume that's including the now 12th condition that's been added. Yes. All 12th. Are there other questions? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Chair, we've had a request to move the next discussion item up on your agenda due due to travel arrangements. That item appears on page 6, item H of your agenda, a final development plan for professional office park. Would that be agreeable to the Chair? Absolutely. We don't want any planes to get missed this afternoon. Okay. Thank you. We'll set up for that and be ready in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Salley. Madam Chair, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. The next item for discussion appears on page 6 of your agenda, item H, DP 2011-53 Professional Park, formerly known as General Mills and Shoney's property. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 2326 through 2334 Nicholasville Road. That plan is to my immediate right, and this is a different plan that those of you on the subdivision committee reviewed last week. This plan was brought to us earlier this week, and it is the one the staff has reviewed. We have circulated to you two items. The first is on a pink sheet. It is a revised staff recommendation on this development plan. And then also we have circulated to you a blowup of a portion of this plan, which shows a building elevation from the Nicholasville Road vantage point. I have just a few items put on the overhead to orient you to the location of this property. First is the zoning map that will help locate the property and also talk about the split zoning condition that exists here. Subject property is on the east side of Nicholasville Road. So it is south of Lowry Lane and north of Malibu Drive. Subject property is identified in yellow, and it is a split zone property, the majority of which is B1. That's a neighborhood business zone along its frontage to a depth of several hundred feet back from Nicholsville Road. However, the rear portion is in a P1 professional office zone, as is other property further to the rear at this location. and then also to the south. This is part of the professional park development, which a decade or two ago was almost entirely office park. There have been several rezonings over the past 15 years, and now about half of this area is zone B1, and the remaining, the rear half, still remains P1. There has been some redevelopment in this area as well. In pink, we've identified several access easements that exist in this area that provides circulation through these office and business properties. There are two access points existing to Nicholsville Road, one each to Malibu Drive and Lowry Lane. Subject property is immediately to the north of one of the major access locations serving the development. We have an aerial photo to kind of hone in on that identified property that's before you this afternoon. Again, this is Nicholsville Road, Lowry Lane is here. This is one of the access easements identified, as is this one. This is formerly the location of a Joe's Crab Shack restaurant situated centrally in the property, and there's off-street parking on either side. The P1 area of the lot is back here, and in a P1 zone, parking is a principle-permitted use. Since your subdivision committee meeting last week, please, We have received not only a revised plan, but also some building elevations for the proposed building on the property, and we'll leave those on the overhead. The existing restaurant, as the photo showed, is centrally located on the property. Again, this is Nicholsville Road. Lowry Lane is just off the plan here, Malibu much further to the south. The existing restaurant is centrally located. this plan proposes to redevelop the property and place a retail building toward the front of the property, just over 12,000 square feet, just to the north of the existing access easement, with a smaller 3,038 square foot building just to the north of it. There are a couple of easements that run along the property, one here and one on its northern boundary as well. And the main entrance to this building is proposed from the off-street parking lot, which is still to be to the rear of the property, including the P1 portion of the property. The rear orientation of this building was one of the main issues for the staff in its review of this development plan. We have some new information that you may not have had last week at your subdivision committee meeting on that topic. The plan proposes some 92 off-street parking spaces. There are just a few more than 50 that are required for this new use, so there is ample parking being proposed. and no significant change to the access proposed. The access easement will remain to Nicholsville Road and to Lowry Lane. There are some modifications proposed to make a connection to this access easement. The access easement and the parking lot immediately to the north in an R4 zone were approved by the Board of Adjustments several years ago. And in the R4 portion immediately adjacent to this property, there is no change proposed. In reviewing the revised development plan, you'll see from the pink sheet the staff is proposing a number of changes to the recommended conditions. Our, with conditions number five and eight, those are sign-off conditions. There are no changes proposed. There is additional information about tree preservation now proposed along Nicholsville Road, where there are several large trees and along the northern property line where we abut R4 zoning. There is zone-to-zone screening required from a P1 or B1 zone to an R4. We believe by and large the existing trees will remain to satisfy that requirement, and there will be additional plantings to augment that as well. That's our expectation. Only one large tree is not currently shown in a TPA area, And, of course, condition number five will require the urban foresters' approval of that. I'm sure that will be reviewed. The staff is not sure of the condition of that tree, whether it's still a healthy tree or not. Moving to the revised conditions, condition number nine can be replaced with a new condition. That is just that typical copyright information not be on the public document, but as a signed document. We don't think there will be any issue with that. Condition number ten can be removed. the purpose of amendment note on this revised submission is satisfactory to the staff. Condition number 11 is also what I would categorize as a cleanup condition. The cross section has been added to the plan. We think there's a slight error in the sidewalk information on that cross section. We'd like that revised. I don't believe that there is a sidewalk across Nicholasville Road from this location. Very cleanup type of condition. Number 12 can be deleted as the correct plan title now appears on the document. Condition number 11, new condition number 11, existing 13, is also a cleanup condition. The tree canopy information is not broken out into what is existing and what will result from the new plantings. That is a requirement of the ordinance, and we would ask before the plan is certified and signed that that be added to the plan. We don't believe there's any issue with compliance there, especially since this plan now has so much tree preservation area identified on it. It's just a matter of getting the numbers on the plan. Conditions number 14 and 15 also have been satisfied with the revised submission this week. New condition number 12 is worthy of a brief discussion. There are two small areas that technically are off-site to the plan, and there's a sidewalk proposed here and a new access connection to the rear service road. Staff wants documentation that the applicant has permission to make those improvements if it's in fact off-site. Condition new number 13, we ask that that note be added to the plan just to ensure that in their service area, which is on the northern corner of the building here, that retaining walls and a scissor lift improvement be documented that those have the proper encroachment permits. We do not think that will be necessary at the time of the certification of the plan, but rather prior to a building permit being issued. We would like it noted on the plan so that's caught after this plan is finalized before building permits issued. Conditions number 18 and 19 can be deleted, but I do need to refer to a little bit of information we've received on that. Let's go back to the next overhead for just a moment. As I mentioned earlier, the Nicholasville Road orientation was, yeah, actually it's the other one. Right there. We'll go back to the other. This appears on the plan and does answer the staff's question about how the building will appear from Nicholasville Road, especially since the front orientation of the building is to the parking lot. This is the information we've received. We are not at all surprised to see a signage proposal for the rear of the building. We are pleased that we do have some height variation on what is certainly not a big box building, but that is an issue we have discussed recently with other big-box stores in the community. Again, this is only a 12,000-square-foot building, and generally our big-box design guidelines don't kick in until it's about four times that size or more. This improvement is also important to the staff. Those will have the appearance of windows. They won't be true light, but at least from the Nicholsville Road perspective, it will look more like a store than a blank wall. We think that, with retention of most of the existing trees on Nicholsville Road, will have an appropriate appearance to Nicholsville Road for the rear of this building. The retaining wall that is beyond the building also, we think, will augment that. It will not obviously be as tall as the building. We think all of that in combination will resolve much of the staff's initial concern about how this building, or rather how the rear of this building will look from Nicholsville Road. Thank you. The orientation of the front of the building and the smaller building, the 3,038 square foot building on the overhead now, was also an issue to the staff. We've identified with the red arrows on the overhead where the entrance ways to the building are. Seeing that those are the main entrances proposed for the building, we can see why the applicant would not want to put parking stalls exactly in that location. That will give a little more of a congregation meeting place, a little safer environment for the pedestrian exiting or entering the store before they navigate to the parking lot. So we are satisfied to eliminate condition 19 given this information. The dumpsters, this is currently the design proposed for the dumpsters. And there is one other item shown on this overhead in orange. There are two areas that will be off limits to most vehicles on the plan, somewhat of an unusual feature. This is the one you're seeing on the overhead here. And additionally, the new access to the service road will have a similar treatment. And you'll see from the example, it's a stamped heavy-duty asphalt that will be raised. This will, of course, need to be approved by the Traffic Engineering Division, but this will provide trucks the ability to service the dumpster and maneuver on the site, as well as the one to the rear access easement for trucks to come in and out of the property to the service area using that area as well. Being raised and having appropriate markings will be part of Traffic Engineering's approval, probably at this stage and at the building permit stage, to make sure that these are designed mostly for truck use and not for the average automobile or SUV servicing the store. So that will be somewhat of an unusual design feature with this plan. The staff's in agreement with that, provided this additional information is placed on the plan. We want that notation placed in those two areas. Finally, new condition number 14 is just to correct a slight error in the zoning information on the plan. The plan currently has this as the zoning line. Our research indicates that this is the zoning line, and we'll give that information to the applicants so that they can make that change to their proposal. I've spent more time than I'd planned explaining this plan to you. I apologize to you for that, but at this time I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about the plan that we reviewed or about our revised recommendation to you this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Are there questions for Mr. Sally from the commission? Mr. Owens. Bill, real quick, you mentioned the orange. Did you say what was in the orange? The orange area doesn't appear in green on this drawing with the exception of this area. If you look at the other one, this area here and this, according to the detail, are stamped asphalt, heavy-duty asphalt. So the average vehicle maneuvering through the parking lot is not expected to drive over that. Okay. But it won't technically be grass the way we're used to in a parking lot. Okay, that's fine. I'm looking at the orange that's currently there. Is that where the dumpster location is? This, the current submission, as of a couple days ago, showed a double dumpster there. Okay. A lot of the staff's time over the last 48 hours has been emailing Mr. Warner and the Solid Waste Division and the applicant about the dumpsters. The issue with the dumpsters was it does not appear that this geometry will work without an encroachment into the existing easements, which is Solid Waste Division's concern. The current thinking, and of course we have Mr. Warner's sign-off for the final details, The current thinking is rather than a double dumpster, the idea of two separate dumpsters will allow the dumpster to be outside the easement, allow them to service it, and still meet the applicant's needs. Okay. That is technically not resolved today, but we think this is the current thinking of how that will be done. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Copeland. Yes. I have two questions and a comment. It appeared that the front facade was offset, too, which would soften the building since it's not going to have parking in front and so forth. So that looked real good to me. Are those shrubs underneath that front elevation? Let's put the front elevation back on the overhead. There are currently shrubs on the property in front of the parking lot. I am not sure if those shrubs are to be maintained. Well, they may not be able to live through all this. Exactly. The trees are shown in a tree preservation area. So the trees that are between those shrubs and the sidewalk are to remain according to the plan. It wasn't that drawing. It was the other one. It was the larger version. Thank you. That's it. I think what you're seeing in shading there is not landscaping but a different material on the building. Well, anyway, we're going to have shrubs in front of it. My question is, they've got grocery on the front, but that building with those tall parapets will be able to have signage on the side. Is there a regulation about that? Generally, each wall is allowed one sign. Okay. Yes. So we can expect that. Yes. The other thing is on the service road, all traffic and all parking will be at the rear of this property as we see it from Nicholasville Road. Yes. So that's a lot of traffic on the service road. They are totally going to be responsible for taking care of that road, ice, repair of the asphalt, et cetera. Does anybody else use that service road besides this building? Yes, there are a number of buildings in this development that will rely on the service road. The property immediately to the east is still undeveloped, and there is an approved development plan for office buildings on that property. If they ever develop, it's clear that they would also use this access easement. There are commercial buildings to the south. I'm not sure if currently they rely much on the access easement, but the way the plan exists for the rest of the property, those are interconnected, And we would expect that there would be some sort of maintenance agreements between the owners to keep those maintained. So they jointly own this service road? I'm not sure about the ownership. Their plan does not indicate that it's on their property, but they have a right to access this easement. And it is a platted access easement, so all of the lots have a right to use it. Staff is not certain of the details of the maintenance other than there's the general note that requires private access maintenance and access for government utilities for their normal functions as well. So that will be on the plans. In other words, Fayette County government isn't going to get the holding and the responsibility for all the road systems. The latter part is exactly correct. The note appears on the plats for the property, not on the development plan. Okay. Are there additional? Ms. Phillips? Ms. Phillips, can you please remind me, did you say there were 90-some-odd parking spaces? There are 92 proposed. And the requirement is only 50? 51. 51. For a store of this size. That seems excessive, almost doubling the parking. And it concerns me regarding stormwater. Don't we have some sort of maximum parking standards as opposed to minimum parking standards, or am I thinking of a particular zone? You're on the right track. We have maximum parking limitations in the identified infill and redevelopment area, which of course is the 11 square miles central to the community. This particular area is probably a mile south of that area. area. So it does not technically have maximum parking requirements. The stormwater is proposed. I appreciate you bringing that up because I did not present that to you and I apologize to the commission. There is an underground detention area located here under some of the proposed parking and a more surface oriented facility proposed to be located between the retaining wall and the business that's immediately to the north which is oriented to the corner of Lowry and Nicholasville. My concern is just providing so much additional parking. I'm wondering if it's going to be shared parking, since some of that parking is in the professional office district. Will that be shared with some of the other businesses? What's the purpose of having so many parking spaces? I cannot answer. We presume that it's the applicant's desire, but certainly from the staff perspective, this we would expect to be the least utilized in the lot, being so far from the entrance. Are there other questions for Mr. Salling, Mr. Greibnitz? Bill, was there an entrance that they're closing? There is. There is. There is currently an entrance here. The restaurant, again, is situated here, and there is a parking lot between the restaurant and the road. and there is an access from the service road to that front parking lot. The rear parking lot, the access is to change. Currently it is here, and it's to be relocated here. This also will be a new one. So one, in essence, will replace two. So there wasn't one on Nicholsville Road? There is not one to Nicholsville Road, no, sir. Are there other questions? Not. Thank you very much. Thank you. Petitioner. Good afternoon. I'm Brody Glenn with Centennial American Properties. My address is 935 South Main Street, Greenville, South Carolina. First, I want to apologize that we weren't here last week at the subdivision meeting. We had some miscommunication between our team and was not here. We apologize. And then secondly, I want to thank your staff. We do this stuff all over the southeast, and your staff has gone well above the call of duty to try to get us to this level. So we want to thank them and Bill, his e-mails and things that he was doing. So those guys are doing a great job for you. Bill presented the project, and what we're doing is a retail store. It will be made up of one tenant, although it will be in two stores just because of the Kentucky laws. As far as the parking goes, we work with a number of national tenants throughout the southeast. We try to get them to reduce the amount of parking for runoff, for property taxes, for cleanup, for costs, other things. This group uses all their parking, and they use it all the time. It's just their sales volumes and the amount of customers that they have per square foot is a little different from what you usually see. So I think when the store is built, I think you'll be surprised at the amount of people that go here. We're excited about this development. It will be a good development that, although we're not hometown guys, we'll treat it as a hometown project, and it will be something that we'll be willing to show off to anybody that wants to come see. So we thank you all for having us here, and once again, thanks to your staff for a great job, and thank you all for your time. Any questions? Are there questions? Ms. Copeland? Yes, ma'am. Can you tell us something about your retail, what you plan to do, and why we had a memorandum about a copyright? I'm not sure about the copyright. That's a standard staff condition when we see a submission that has copyright information on it. Certainly we understand the applicants wanting to control that document. The actual document we sign, we would not sign with copyright limitations on it because it's a public document once it's certified. That's all that the condition means. Okay. As far as our tenant, it's a national tenant. It's a tenant that is new to the community. It's not new to the state, but it's new to the community. It's a tenant I think that you all would be happy to have, and it is a grocery store. Are there other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? If not, then I will close the hearing, and I'll open it up for discussion. Once Commission members, if there is none, then we will entertain a motion. Ms. Owens? Oh, I'm sorry. It isn't working right, so I can't tell who's up next to speak. Ms. I move that we approve DP 2011-53, Professional Park, formerly General Mills, Shoney's property with the 14 conditions as recommended by staff. I have a motion by Ms. Faddy, second by Mr. Brewer. Is there any further discussion? If not, please everyone vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. You should get to your plane on time. Thank you. That will put us back on page 5 of your agenda item D. Thank you. Thank you. the Manchester development. This is an amended final development plan for the adaptive reuse project, better known as the distillery district. It's located at the, essentially the overall district is located at the intersection of Manchester Street and Oliver Lewis Way. The purpose of this amended development plan is to add the property 948 Manchester Street to the overall adaptive reuse project. Currently there is an existing building on the subject property and a large paved area that doesn't have any striping. It's not a well-defined area. It's just all been blacktop over the year. This particular property is zone B4. It was a part of the original TIF district for the TIF approval that went through here. There was not any proposal for any development at the time that this plan originally came in, and the applicant now has potential users for this property and has requested that it be added to the adaptive reuse project. I have what I called earlier today my low-tech PowerPoint presentation. Blowing up the subject property, it's at the corner of Willard Street and Manchester Street. It's about 8,000 square feet of building. It's got a blacktop area, if you want to call it blacktop, an older blacktop area out front along Manchester Street. It does have access to Willard Street for a door on the building that you can drive in. The applicant is proposing to keep all of those access points, but to clean up the parking lot, re-stripe and repave the parking lot as necessary. In doing so, they are proposing to have 19 parking spaces for the subject property. You can look at it looking from the north, which is the same orientation as the development plan, or from the south, looking at it from Manchester Street. you can see that it's just a series of multiple buildings that have all kind of had shared walls. In talking with Mr. McNeese, Barry McNeese, what is proposed for this site right now is the Mecca Dance Studio, which would be an allowable use under the Adaptive Reuse Project. There would be other uses that would potentially go into this building, but that's one that is trying to get in right now. Going back to look at the – getting rid of the high-tech PowerPoint presentation there, to go back to the development plan. At your subdivision committee, the applicant had presented a revised development plan. plan. At the subdivision committee, the staff had recommended postponement because there was not enough information to determine whether the required parking was made. The revised plan and looking at the last development plan, it's now clear as to why that happened. Whenever this plan last was before you, a part of the purpose of that amendment was to add a note saying that the allowable uses for this adaptive reuse project will be limited to the available parking. And that's because in an adaptive reuse project, you have such a wide variety of uses that can go in to these projects. Some of them are very high parking generators. Some of them are very low. It makes pretty much any type of required parking number on the development plan kind of a moot point, because as soon as one of those new uses comes in, in the Division of Building Inspection, they have to redo all of the parking calculations every time anyway. And so what we've come up with, and it was on the last plan, but it was in the purpose of amendment note. So whenever this plan came forward to you, it had a new purpose of amendment note. We lost that note that says that the allowable uses will be governed by the available parking. The staff has reviewed the revised submission since your subdivision committee, And we're happy to offer a new recommendation of approval based off of the 11 conditions listed on your revised recommendation sheet. They have cleaned up all of the cleanup items that the staff have put forward. The only exception there is condition number 10, about Chapter 16 of the Code of Ordinances for the Soil Erosion Control, now that we've taken it out of the zoning ordinance. It's a very common condition that you will probably see for about a year or so until the development community is used to that regulatory change. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. And in talking with Mr. McNeese earlier today, he did have a scheduling conflict. He was trying to be here in case you had any questions for him. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Is there anyone here, Commission, that has questions at this point? Not. Thank you very much. Is there anyone? You said the petitioners. I don't see him. He's not here. I don't see him. I did talk to him on the phone earlier today, though. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Seeing none, then I will close this hearing and turn it over to the Commission. Is there any discussion, questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion at this time. Madam Chair, I move for approval of DP 2011-49. I have a motion by Mr. Brewer. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Owens. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor, or all please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. The last item on your agenda today is on the bottom of page 6, item I. It is DP 2011-56, the letterer property amended. It's property located at 312 North Limestone Street. This is property now known as the letterer property to the staff. The original house here, the Carrick House, was the Whitehall Funeral Chapel. Subsequently, the plan after there was a zone change on the back of this property, the plan is now the original Carrick House along with the new Banquet Hall on the rear of the property. Here you have East 3rd Street and North Limestone. Fayette County School Magnet School is located directly to the north next to this property. In the back here we have what is known as Lake Alley. It's a small alley right-of-way that exists and stubs in at this point with the school property. The purpose of this amendment is to request what they're referring to on the plan as a new access point. It is, however, the existing access point that has been on this property for many, many years. Due to their wish to maintain this access point, which was removed on the previous plan, They are having to revise some of the parking to the effect that they're losing several parking spaces on site. You may recall that for this development to work, they have an off-site parking agreement with the school district, and the vast majority of their parking is actually available to them off-site. They still have adequate, more than adequate parking. There is actually a large amount of parking in their lease agreement off-site. The other aspects of this plan where there's been some slight amendments is originally this service drive ended approximately in this location. They have now extended this service drive all the way around to Lake Alley. Along with the extension of this service drive, originally the dumpster location was in this area. This amendment is proposing to place the dumpster out here in the Lake Alley right-of-way. There have been some slight square footage changes as well. Several of these bump outs that you see along here on the north side of the building are actually small additions to the building. As well as, again, you may recall, you can see the old trees on the plan. There was a small open courtyard in this area that has since been enclosed. Again, there was considerable discussion. As you may recall, here was the tree, the basswood, that was discussed at great length by this body and staff. This relationship has remained the same. None of this, geometrics, none of this has moved. So the tree is still protected in that regard. The plan is a late plan and has such as not been before the technical committee officially. It was presented at their request to the technical committee. They have been working quite conscientiously with several of the members of the technical committee that are affected by this plan, and particularly the solid waste and the dumpster issue. Again, it is unusual to ask that something like that be placed in a right-of-way, and it is staff's understanding that they have started that encroachment process. They have to request permission to do that, and they have to receive permission to do that. You can see from your conditions on the plan that we have some standard sign-offs, And then document number seven is document the encroachment permit for existing and proposed improvements on Lake Alley prior to certification of the plan. Again, when they extended this service drive through here, they came out into Lake Alley and they've actually done a little bit of work in this area of Lake Alley. staff would expect them to document that encroachment prior to certification of this plan. We also, in consultation with traffic engineering, have a condition, number eight, that they are to denote that the new access, the existing access, to Third Street be designated as exit only. And as Third Street, as you may know, is a two-way street. People exiting this plan will have the options of going left and right, traffic permitting. But with the angled parking and the amount of traffic that can be generated by these activities, we've wanted to reduce the potential for conflict at that location. We have a small cleanup condition, which is remove the word proposed from the right-of-way on Lake Alley. There is a small section right in here that's dedicated, so there's no need for them to refer to it as proposed. It is, in fact, existing right-of-way. And then the last condition, denote Board of Architectural Review's approval prior to certification. This is a B-1 property, and it also has an H-1 overlay. And so these changes to the plan are also subject to the BOAR review. It is our understanding that they have filed and they're on the agenda for that review. I believe they have requested a postponement of that currently due to an illness of their attorney. So they have actually requested a postponement, but they are in that process as well to be reviewed by the BOAR for compliance with those standards. The staff and your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there questions from commission members? Mr. Holman. Tom, during subdivision, there was some construction up on the north side that was mentioned. Can you explain what took place there? The changes on this plan actually reflect some decisions that apparently were made during construction. Again, this was added. There was work going on in these buildings. In addition, there's, in fact, I believe a garage door has been added right here, which I'm sure will be of interest to the BOAR review because of its orientation to limestone. This patio, which I neglected to tell you, has actually gotten slightly larger. It was originally just scalloped out through here, and they have squared it up. And, again, there was mostly construction at the time, as staff understood it, going on in the building and on parts of the building most of this work on the outside has been completed and again they have done some work up in here in the alley already so again that's one reason we wish to see the encroachment permit tom i went by there today and it appeared to me that truthfully that the building is pretty much finished on the outside so what's been proposed here is work that's already done? I would say that's a fair characterization, yes, sir. Is there any explanation as to why? I believe that the scope of the work is relatively minor, and I think it was decisions were made in the field, architect, folks like that, you know, and you have people working. It's our understanding that they just made some decisions to make some changes. I would add that the Certificate of Occupancy staff has been informed has not been issued on this property and I'm sure will not be until all proper certifications and approvals have been obtained. As far as what's taking place right now, let me just ask two other things. As far as the old new entrance on East 3rd Street, it's being proposed that that is going to be an exit only, correct? How is that going to be limited as exit only? Being by there today, there's no striping, there's no signage, there's no nothing. I would anticipate that those types of things would have to be clearly delineated to the approval of traffic engineering, and that would involve striping, signage, and that sort of thing to make sure that it is clear to the public that it is exit only. Okay. And then the other thing, the dumpster, you know, in a lot of these situations, we typically see dumpster enclosures. Is that proposed here? They would have to meet our standards, yes, sir, and that would include an enclosure should the encroachment be approved. Okay. All right, that's it for now. Okay. Is anyone else? Ms. Bade. In subdivision, the way that it was presented, and maybe I was a little confused, I thought that this was in a development plan for them to begin construction. No, ma'am, it's an amended plan to address the changes. Correct. But what Mike was just pointing out, the fact that it's already been completed, I don't recall that being the discussion in subdivision, but maybe I missed a point. Was that discussed that it was completed? I believe it was discussed as an ongoing, that parts were completed, but it's an ongoing. They are still working on the building. And with it going to the Board of Adjustment, if subdivision has already approved it, what implications does that have? It will not go to the Board of Adjustment. It will go to the Board of Architectural Review. And if they do not approve the standards, some of the changes, they will have to be removed. Okay. We will not certify the plan until BOAR has approved it as you've seen it. And if necessary, those changes may necessitate it, it be brought back to this body. Ms. Copeland? The computer is back working, so we can now request. Oh, okay. Request. I have problems with the exit that was off the plan and now is back on the plan. Because the headlights coming out of that at, let's say, a weekend or night function, particularly a night function, are going to shine right in all of those nice, recently rehabilitated houses. it's a real impact to dump 200 cars. How many parking spaces are there in the gray lot? There are only 40-some parking spaces on site. Okay. And then there's some around the circular drive that are illegal, but they're going to park there. And let's say 90 cars come out, or 50 cars come out and shine their lights at those nice that are behind the Bengay, what is it, Lenses or whatever is in the little gas station that became the Bengay shop where they sell the little New Orleans donuts. Oh, they're good. But anyway, it's going to really impact those. It would be kind of sad. If it could be turned around so that that was an entrance and the other two places were exits, I just point that out, but I think that it would be a much more neighborly, friendly kind of property. I'm sorry. Oh, well, here's Jim. I didn't see him. Good. Mr. Gallimore, can you help us with this? I would add just that the grade change, as you know, this drops down. All traffic moving through here, their lights at one point are going to be shining across the street towards them. And as they drop down, I think that may assist that problem. But certainly it is worthy of consideration. If you just invested $200,000 in your house across from that exit, would you be happy? Jim Gallimore, Traffic Engineering. I could be wrong, but I thought that when we first saw this amended plan that we were recommending that to be an entrance only as opposed to an exit. Now, I don't know if there's been additional conversations to where the flow has been reversed, but our initial reaction to keeping the entrance is not to have traffic exiting from the property because of the site triangle problems created by those columns on each side. In other words, if you exited out of East 3rd Street, you probably could not see ongoing traffic. But as I mentioned, I don't know if there were future conversations or where that idea was reversed, but our initial thoughts was for it to be an entrance only due to the side triangle issues. And taking into account what you're talking about, the headlights, is certainly considerable more information, too. Apparently there may have been some miscommunication or misunderstanding. It was our understanding at a technical committee that traffic supported the exit only. Perhaps, again, as we may have miscommunicated or misunderstood, apparently traffic does share your concern with it being an entrance only. I just think it's a real impact to that block across the street that has made a considerable investment there. And it's really kind of a narrow two-way street. It's not like four lanes over. Maybe the Board of Architectural Review will hop on this. And certainly if this body should feel it necessary and the applicant is here and they can address their concerns as well, that would be a simple change to a condition from exit to entrance based on what you've heard today. I think that's – Ms. Phillips. I think I have the longest tenure on the commission. I remember we have dealt with this property for many years. And what I'm remembering is that there was something associated with the stone fence along East 3rd Street that would inhibit cars coming, I think, on the exit. So we had talked about, you know, just making an entrance. But, again, this is, I'd be curious if staff could dig out some old minutes from when we discussed this before. But that's one issue. The other issue is this property had, quote, unquote, temporary structures on it for many years before temporary structures were defined and permitted to be there. Thirdly, we were looking, as I recall, about preserving some unique trees. You referred to the one that's there on Third Street. as having been unique. And I want to say there was a second tree. There. Yeah. But those details are fuzzy. But I also recall that on the rear of the property, on the other side of that alley, was there not a parcel that was a dedicated parking lot? It was a vacant lot where a structure had been removed that was then made into a parking area. And I'm concerned about where I'm going with all this is I'm concerned about the dumpster being placed in a right-of-way. I think that's really a bad precedent for us to set, regardless of the legalities, you know, and getting permission and having it fly on paper. And is there an opportunity to place that dumpster maybe off-site onto that parking lot, that temporary parking lot that we took care of? The staff has not been involved directly in any of those discussions. I think there have been. We have been told that there have been some discussions about alternative locations for the dumpster. The encroachment permit in the location in Lake Alley is just a request. It is certainly not given by any means, and the applicant will have to address that. If not granted that permission, they will have to re-elect the dumpster. And I believe there has been some discussion about an off-site across the alley location being feasible. The other point, I'm just remembering, with respect to the stone wall that's on East 3rd Street, we talked about it being, you know, original, you know, heritage, and used other words of that sort. But because of that wall, there were sight distance issues. We didn't want to in any way break down the wall to create that sight triangle that Mr. Gallimore was just referring to. So I would be supportive of making that an entrance only because, if memory serves, we had discovered, uncovered some issues associated with that being an exit several years back. Well, and again, you may also recall that was the proposed location for the rain garden, which was determined was a poorly conceived feature and removed from the plan. Oh, that was. Are there additional questions? Mr. Craven. This Lake Alley, is that the same owner? Owner? Owner of the, does he own both pieces of property there? The owner, yes, owns on both sides, but Ms. Litter, I believe, also still owns a piece of property in this location. There is a lot right up in here that is misletterers. I do believe the applicant does own some property across the alley. It looks like the property line stops at Lake Alley. I didn't know who owned it. It is right-of-way. It does. These are separate pieces of property. This is public right-of-way. Same owner. Same owner on either side of the public right-of-way. Okay. It's the city owns it. The city owns it. Yes, sir. It is city-owned alley. And then this work they're talking about that was, I guess, change orders or something, that's done inside the building envelope? These and the enclosure of that are all certainly inside the envelope, yes, sir. A little bit of work. It's not extensive. It's 18 feet or so down into Lake Alley. But they're allowed to modify the building inside that building envelope. Yes, sir, they are. all those square footage increases are subject to your approval on a development plan? Are there additional questions? Thank you. Petitioner? Madam Chairman, I'm Roger Ladenberger. We've been working with the staff and the members of the technical committee to get to this point, and we're in agreement with all the conditions and request approval. We recommend it, too. Are there any questions? Mr. Brewer? Yes, sir. Do you agree with the entrance only as opposed to the exit only? My client can live with it either way. This access point historically has been an exit and an entrance, a two-way access point. It was used that way forever by the Whitehall Funeral Home parking lot, which was in pretty much the same location as our parking lot, even though ours is a little larger now. We left it as a two-way access point, and when we went through this time through the committee hearings, it was recommended to be an exit only. My client says that would be okay with him. Now I hear some opinions that they would like to have in an interest. He would be okay with that too. So we showed it both ways, but we can live with it however you all decide. Are there additional questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to make comment? If not, then it does. Oh, Mr. Ohm. Oh, I'm sorry. You have a question. Thank you. My question is back for Mr. Martin. Tom, when you mentioned square footage increase, when we were talking about the building envelope, what they've done, did that increase the square footage? I think we both know the answer. Yes, sir. There has been a slight increase of the square footage on this amendment. Okay. 140 square feet approximately. It is small, but square footage increases are governed by the Planning Commission. So officially this should have came back to us before the construction took place. I believe that the excessive square footage is partly the enclosure of the open courtyard and then the addition of that one small area on the north side of the building increased the square footage slightly. Yep. But my question is, officially, they should have came back to us prior to doing that construction. Square footage increases are a major amendment and require Planning Commission approval. Yes, sir. Okay. And aside from this, I would have to concur with Ms. Beatty in the fact that I would have appreciated in the committee meeting last week that this would have been defined to us as work that had already been done. Ms. Copeland? Mr. Martin, when they increased the square footage of the building, didn't they eradicate their previous dumpster site? It is my understanding that it was interior work that really affected the dumpster site. However, the one addition with the door, I suspect, also has had some bearing on it. And, yeah, I believe that the work overall, the exact extent I can't really speak to, has affected their desire to relocate the dumpster. So they erased their previous okay dumpster site with their overbuilding. That's kind of what I'm hearing. And I do believe the HVA system required some intakes that were placed in the area that the dumpster was going to go, and they had some concerns about odor and that sort of thing. Oh, okay. Well, I am in favor of keeping your trash on your own lot and not putting it out in public right-of-ways or alleys. Ms. Phillips. Just a procedural question. Can we approve all the elements of this plan excluding the dumpster location? Would that require this plat to come back to us with a new revised dumpster location? Or procedurally, how do we go from here if we don't like that? Well, dumpster location is normally a sign-off as an aspect of your conditional approval. And in this case, if they don't get the encroachment permit, then they will have to relocate the dumpster. I believe you all are certainly allowed as a body to state your preference for its location. But, again, generally it's been handled as a sign-off condition to make sure all necessary requirements are met that the solid waste folks have to enforce. Well, I'm on the record as saying I think putting it in the alley in a public right-of-way is a really bad precedent for this body. Mr. King. I would just comment that if the Commission feels strongly you can speak as a body to that issue. I'm talking to counsel, you have the right to say that that option is not on the table and that they have to pursue a different option. But I don't think you can bifurcate the approval and have it partially approved and not partially approved. Ms. Faddy. You're saying if they do not get permission to do the encroachment, But have they not already set the platform there for the dumpster? They have done some work, and I think that is where they would like to put it, and perhaps they are anticipating that approval, but they certainly have not received it, and it is not a given at all. I don't know. It just seems to me, and when I saw the site, It just seems to me that that's not what I understood in subdivision. And why would you do construction in an area that may not be approved for you to utilize in that way? The conditions you see on your plan were presented in subdivision. It was presented. However, on the dumpster issue, it is right at the end of Lake Alley. and they have done some work there. I mean, it looks very nice. However, if they don't get approval to have the dumpster in that location, it just seems to me why would you do the work and set it up if you're not going to be able to complete that? I'm missing something on this today. I cannot speak to the applicant's motivations or what they anticipated. are those decisions. I can only speak to the fact that this amendment does propose that location. Okay. All right. I'm sure Roger. Let me see if I can help you with that. It was necessary to do some paving in that area because the condition of Lake Alley was poor. We widened Lake Alley at the entrance from Third Street. And in connection with that widening, we did do some paving at the end of Lake Alley where it stubs into LTMS, and that's where we're proposing to put the dumpster. The paving had nothing to do with the dumpster. What we did do, what the contractor did do, was set two bollards. You know what a bollard is. He set two bollards, which are typical to back up a dumpster. And that's the only dumpster improvement that's been made. There's no dumpster there. A dumpster is a temporary structure anyway. It's not a permanent structure. If for some reason or other we're not granted this access easement, this encroachment permit from the city, then we won't be able to put a dumpster there and we'll just remove the bollards. But the pavement will remain. Ms. Blatt? Ms. Blatt? The bottom line to me seems like the applicant is here not to ask for approval but for forgiveness, and I don't think that's the precedent that we want to set here. I am in favor of changing the exit only to the entrance, and I'm in favor of, if it sounds like we can, legally take that dumpster right-of-way issue off the table, and I think that we should. And then my final comment is that I hope the applicant truly will wait for that certificate of occupancy because it seems like they haven't waited for any other approval process here. Thank you. Ms. Bolden, did you have a comment? I was just going to say, I mean, I think you could make as a condition that the dumpster not be located in public right away. Okay. I'm sorry, Ms. Blanton, were you through? I mean, are there any other comments? Questions? Does everybody understand what we can and can't do with this? One more comment. Carla just took essentially all my words, but the last thing I would say is if we are aware of this as a staff before, please red flag it for us. It seems like we had to tease that one out. I think we need to know in advance. Are there other comments, questions? I would be supportive of postponing action on this plan until we do get a certifiable dumpster location. I'm concerned with conditioning it, and I think that our leaving it carte blanche to the applicant, we've already seen that the applicant has a history of doing things and then coming back and asking us to justify those actions. So I would be supportive of postponing action on this until we do see an acceptable location for that dumpster, because it is part of the development plan process that we define a space for the location of the dumpster. Are you making that in the form of a motion? I would like to move for postponement of this plan to resolve some of those issues. Is there a second? Second. The motion has been made by Ms. Phillips, seconded by Mr. Owens, for postponement. Or do we need to, until they can, we don't need to set a time, do we? Ordinarily, the commission does postpone two weeks a month, a period of time. Two weeks? Is that two weeks of gribble for your motion? Okay. All right. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion to postpone for two weeks carries. Thank you all very much. We're about to get kicked out of the building. So we do have performance letters that we need to deal with. Mr. Rowan, you look like you have those in your hand. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of the release and call of bonds as the memorandum states for June 9, 2011. Second. I have a motion by Ms. Irwin, second by Mr. Cravens. Is there any discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Ms. Phillips. Madam Chair, I just have one last very informal item of business. I'd like to welcome a new faculty member and a new resident to Lexington to the Planning Commission meeting. This is Professor Matt Wilson, who just recently relocated within the past two weeks from Muncie, Indiana. He's coming to us from Ball State, a member of the geography faculty, and I'm thrilled that he's interested in the issues that we discuss at Planning Commission. So welcome, Matt. Thank you. And on behalf of the rest of the Commission, welcome. And we're sure you're going to enjoy your stay in Lexington. Is there any staff? Mr. King? One very quick staff item, Madam Chair. We do have a work session next week, and it is an important one. We will have the consultants in town for the Complete Streets Project, and hopefully by the end of today, tomorrow, you will get a copy of the draft of that document, so you will have a chance to look at it before the work session next week. Are there other comments? If not, meetings adjourned. Thank you.