# Planning Commission Meeting - July 14, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 14, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2090 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2090?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-07-14 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 10,038 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 July 14, 2011, at 1:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Cravens presided over the meeting. The Commission considered 13 agenda items during the session, taking 10 motions and votes. The meeting included 3 public comments from attendees. All 13 items on the agenda were approved, including multiple subdivision plans, development plans, and a public facilities request. The approved items included various property developments such as Richardson Property units, Beaumont Forest lots, Arlington Weekly Payment Co. & Investment Co. Addition, Mark Acre Property lots, Sharkey Property units, Newmarket Property, Marquis Building, Beaumont Farm lot, Tates Creek Centre, and A-1 Sanitation & Edster Property. The Commission also approved a public facilities request for a Band Tower at Henry Clay High School submitted by Fayette County Public Schools. ## Attendance **Present:** - Mike Cravens - Marie Copeland - Mike Owens - William Wilson - Patrick Brewer - Lynn Roche-Phillips **Absent:** - Eunice Beatty - Carla Blanton - Derek Paulsen **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from June 9, 2011** [timestamp: 0:05:34] Motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Brewer. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor: Mike Cravens, Marie Copeland, Mike Owens, William Wilson, Patrick Brewer, and Lynn Roche-Phillips. **Postponement of DP 2011-62: Riddell Plaza, Lots 1 & 4 to August 11, 2011** [timestamp: 0:06:41] Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Roche-Phillips. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor. **Approval of Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 0:11:43] Motion by Ms. Roche-Phillips, seconded by Mr. Brewer. Passed by voice vote with five members voting in favor (Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, William Wilson, Patrick Brewer, and Lynn Roche-Phillips) and one abstention (Marie Copeland). **Reapproval of PLAN 2007-177F: Sharkey Property, Unit 4, Section 2** [timestamp: 0:16:57] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Brewer. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor. Approval included 15 conditions addressing engineering, traffic, landscaping, tree preservation, and compliance with subdivision regulations. **Approval of DP 2011-52: Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4** [timestamp: 0:33:35] Motion by Ms. Copeland, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor. Approval included 11 conditions addressing infrastructure, landscaping, bike and pedestrian facilities, and fire safety. **Approval of DP 2011-58: Tates Creek Centre, Lot 1 (Amendment #10)** [timestamp: 0:49:07] Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Brewer. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor. Approval included 19 conditions addressing engineering, traffic, landscaping, parking, and buffer requirements. **Approval of DP 2011-61: A-1 Sanitation & Edster Property** [timestamp: 1:13:09] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor. Approval included 16 conditions addressing infrastructure, landscaping, parking, tree protection, and emergency vehicle access. **Approval of Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit** [timestamp: 1:14:16] Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Roche-Phillips. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor. **Approval of PFR 2011-5: Public Facilities Review for Henry Clay High School Band Tower** [timestamp: 1:22:04] Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Owens. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor. Approval included two conditions requiring applicable permits and removal of temporary scaffolding. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 1:23:08] Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Owens. Passed by voice vote with all six members voting in favor. ## Public Comment Three speakers provided public comment during the meeting, addressing concerns related to site access, pedestrian safety, and visual impact. **Access and Circulation for Beaumont Farm Development** Ms. Copeland raised concerns about the proposed access to Beaumont Center Circle in connection with the Beaumont Farm development [timestamp: 0:26:50]. She expressed worry that the proposed access arrangement would unfairly benefit the applicant and disrupt shared circulation with other lots. Ms. Copeland urged that a shared access easement be guaranteed before project approval. **Pedestrian Safety at Tates Creek Center** Ms. Copeland also addressed pedestrian safety considerations at Tates Creek Center [timestamp: 0:44:48]. She suggested adding rumble strips or pavement markings near the proposed crosswalk to improve safety. Her recommendation was based on concerns about high traffic volume in the area and the potential for jaywalking. **Visual Impact of Detention Basin** Ms. Cufflin commented on the visual impact of the proposed retention basin [timestamp: 1:10:52]. She requested that screening be added at the point where the retention basin meets Newtown Pike to mitigate visual intrusion and maintain aesthetic harmony with the surrounding landscape. ## Appointments The following individuals were appointed to the Nominating Committee: * Eunice Beatty * Derek Paulsen * Carla Blanton ## Contested Items **Access and Circulation for Beaumont Farm Development** Ms. Copeland raised concerns about access arrangements for the Beaumont Farm development, specifically regarding fairness in access to Beaumont Center Circle. The core issue centered on the lack of guaranteed shared access among lot owners. This concern prompted a detailed discussion among commissioners about circulation patterns and equity considerations for property owners in the development. The heated nature of this discussion reflected disagreement over how to ensure fair and equitable access arrangements across the proposed development. **Sanitary Sewer Line Conflict at A-1 Sanitation & Edster Property** A significant point of contention emerged regarding an active sanitary sewer line that conflicted with the proposed development plan at the A-1 Sanitation & Edster Property location. Commissioners were divided on whether to approve the plan given this unresolved infrastructure conflict. During the debate, staff confirmed that the sanitary sewer line could be relocated through the appropriate engineering approval process, which provided a potential pathway forward. However, the commissioners remained split on the decision, indicating that some members had reservations about proceeding with approval despite the possibility of relocating the sewer line through standard engineering procedures. ## PLAN 2011-67F: Richardson Property, Unit 5, Section 3 **Outcome:** Approved **Summary:** PLAN 2011-67F for the Richardson Property, Unit 5, Section 3 was approved via consent agenda [timestamp: 0:07:43]. No discussion occurred during the meeting. **Approval Conditions:** The approval included the following conditions: - Utility easements - Tree protection - Street address approval **Key Participants:** Bill Sallee was identified as a key speaker on this agenda item. ## PLAN 2011-68F: Richardson Property, Unit 5, Section 4 **Outcome:** Approved This item was approved via consent agenda with no discussion. [timestamp: 0:07:43] **Conditions of Approval** The approval included the following conditions: * Street tree notes * Access easement cross-sections * Lot setbacks **Key Participant** Bill Sallee was identified as a key speaker on this agenda item. ## PLAN 2011-69F: Beaumont Forest, Unit 1, Lots 4D & 4E This agenda item was approved via the consent agenda with no discussion. [timestamp: 0:07:43] **Approval Conditions** The plan was approved subject to the following conditions: * Revised engineer certification * New easement notes * Floor elevation clarification **Outcome** The plan for Beaumont Forest, Unit 1, Lots 4D & 4E was approved. ## PLAN 2011-70F: Arlington Weekly Payment Co. & Investment Co. Addition This agenda item was approved via the consent agenda with no discussion. [timestamp: 00:07:43] **Approval Conditions** The plan was approved subject to the following conditions: * Property owner information must be provided * Zoning details must be removed from the plan * A maintenance note must be added to the plan **Outcome** The plan received approval without debate or additional comments from the body. ## PLAN 2011-71F: Mark Acre Property (South Broadway Land, LLC) Lots 1 & 2 [timestamp: 00:07:43] This agenda item concerning the Mark Acre Property (South Broadway Land, LLC) Lots 1 & 2 was approved via the consent agenda. Bill Sallee was the key speaker on this matter. The approval included the following conditions: * Conditional zoning * Utility easement resolution * Sidewalk transition note No discussion occurred during the meeting regarding this item. **Outcome:** Approved ## PLAN 2011-72F: Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 10 (Amendment) This agenda item concerning the Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 10 amendment was approved via consent agenda [timestamp: 0:07:43]. Bill Sallee was the key speaker on this matter. The amendment was approved with the following conditions: * Development plan compliance requirements * Access easement maintenance obligations * Note revisions No discussion occurred during the consideration of this item, as it was processed through the consent agenda procedure. ## DP 2007-141: Newmarket Property, Unit 8 This item was reapproved via consent agenda [timestamp: 00:07:43]. Bill Sallee was the key speaker on this matter. The reapproval included the following conditions: * Second certification requirement * Note correction * Street stub construction * Electric utility easement addition No discussion occurred during the meeting regarding this agenda item. **Outcome:** Approved ## DP 2011-64: Marquis Building DP 2011-64 concerning the Marquis Building was approved via consent agenda [timestamp: 0:07:43]. No discussion occurred during the meeting. The item was approved with the following conditions: * Walkway dimensions * Construction access * Building envelope clarification Bill Sallee was the key speaker associated with this agenda item. ## PLAN 2007-177F: Sharkey Property, Unit 4 [timestamp: 00:13:12] The board discussed and reapproved PLAN 2007-177F for the Sharkey Property, Unit 4. Key speakers in this discussion included Cheryl Gallt and Al Gross. The plan was reapproved with conditions. The approval required tree protection approval and compliance with prior waivers. Both staff and the applicant expressed support for the reapproval. The outcome of this agenda item was approval. ## DP 2011-52: Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4 [timestamp: 00:18:13] This agenda item addressed a development proposal for Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4. The discussion involved Chris Taylor, Tom Lambdin, and Ms. Copeland. **Key Issues Discussed** Concerns were raised during the discussion regarding access and circulation for the proposed development. These issues were central to the deliberation before a final decision was reached. **Conditions for Approval** The proposal was approved with specific conditions attached: - Resolution of an access easement - Minor plat certification of the easement **Outcome** The item was approved following discussion and negotiation of the conditions noted above. ## DP 2011-58: Tates Creek Centre, Lot 1 (Amendment #10) [timestamp: 0:34:36] This agenda item addressed Amendment #10 to the development permit for Tates Creek Centre, Lot 1. The discussion involved Mr. Sally and Michael Cady, who addressed the proposal and responded to prior concerns that had been raised. During the discussion, staff and the applicant worked through outstanding issues related to the amendment. Key adjustments were negotiated, including modifications to buffer width requirements and signage specifications. These conditions were incorporated into the approval to address previous concerns and ensure compliance with applicable standards. The development permit amendment was approved following the discussion, contingent upon the agreed-upon conditions regarding buffer width adjustment and signage requirements. ## DP 2011-61: A-1 Sanitation & Edster Property This agenda item was discussed approximately 50 minutes and 15 seconds into the meeting [timestamp: 0:50:15]. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Mr. Martin and Jim Black. **Summary of Discussion** The proposal for DP 2011-61 concerning the A-1 Sanitation & Edster Property was presented for consideration. An engineer provided a relocation plan as part of the discussion. **Issues Addressed** Two primary concerns were identified and addressed during the discussion: - Sewer line conflict resolution - Building envelope adjustment **Outcome** The proposal was **approved** with conditions. The approval was contingent upon resolution of the sewer line conflict and adjustment of the building envelope as discussed. The engineer's relocation plan was accepted as the basis for addressing these conditions. ## PFR 2011-5: Fayette County Public Schools - Band Tower at Henry Clay High School [timestamp: 1:16:00] This agenda item addressed a proposed band tower project at Henry Clay High School within the Fayette County Public Schools system. **Presentation and Discussion** Bill Sallee presented the project to the board. The discussion focused on the construction and installation of a band tower facility at the high school. **Key Recommendations** Staff emphasized two primary recommendations for the project: - Obtaining a building inspection permit prior to construction - Removal of old scaffolding from the site **Considerations** The presentation highlighted the importance of safety protocols and ensuring that the project aligned with the school's curriculum needs. **Outcome** The board approved the project with the recommended conditions regarding the building inspection permit and removal of existing scaffolding. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of minutes from June 9, 2011 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of DP 2011-62: Riddell Plaza, Lots 1 & 4 to August 11, 2011 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Consent Agenda items including multiple subdivision and development plans - **Motion** — passed: Reapproval of PLAN 2007-177F: Sharkey Property, Unit 4, Section 2 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2011-52: Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4 with 11 conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2011-58: Tates Creek Centre, Lot 1 (Amendment #10) with 11 conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2011-61: A-1 Sanitation & Edster Property with 14 conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PFR 2011-5: Public Facilities Review for Henry Clay High School band tower - **Motion** — passed: Adjournment of meeting --- ## Full transcript Music guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to welcome everyone today and we're going to start out with the approval of the minutes. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of the minutes dated June 9th, 2011 as written. Okay, we have a motion for approval and we have a second, Patrick. All in favor, vote aye. Motion carries. Next, do we have any postponements or withdrawals? My name is Al Gross, EA Partners. I'm here representing Roy Kaley. That's scary. He's on yet another vacation. On page 5, item F, BP-201162, Rydell Plaza, lots 1 and 4, we would like to postpone this for one month, please. Okay. Anyone in the audience object to that? If not, Commission, have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the postponement of one month of DP 2011-62. Okay. We have a motion for postponement. We have a second. Second by Ms. Phillips. All in favor, vote aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Is that it? All right. All right. Next, I guess we have the subdivision items and the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of items on your meeting agenda today that qualify for consideration at this time for your consent agenda. There are several final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. Those begin with the very first item on your agenda, page 1, item A, Plan 2011-67F, Richardson Property Unit 5, Section 3. This is a subdivision located at Hannah Todd Place. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item B, Plan 2011-68F, Richardson Property, Unit 5, pardon me, Unit 5, Section 4, also located on Hannah Todd Place. Another plat is on page 2, item C of your meeting agenda, Plan 2011-69, Beaumont Forest, Unit 1, Plots 4D and 4E. This is for property located at 2421 Members Way. The next item on your meeting agenda also is on the consent agenda, Plan 2011-70F, Arlington Weekly Payment Company and Investment Company Edition. This is an amended final record plat for property at 221 Devonia Avenue. Another plat on your consent agenda appears on page 2, item E of your meeting agenda, Plan 2011-70F. 171F, Mark Acre Property, also known as South Broadway Land, LLC, Lots 1 and 2. This is a plat for property at 502 South Broadway and 319 Cedar Street. The final subdivision plat on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda, Page 3, Item F, Plan 2011-72F, the Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 10. This is an amended final record plat for property at 120 Louie Place. In addition to those subdivision plats, there are three final development plans also recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 4, item C of your meeting agenda, DP 2011-59, Bobby and Sylvia Waller property. This property is located at 1528, 1532, and 1534 North Limestone Street. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 5, item D, DP2011-60, the Sharkey Property Unit 1, Blot 10B. This is also for property located at 120 Louie Place. Another development plan on your consent agenda appears on page 6, item H, DP2011-64, the Marquis Building, located at 407 Marquis Avenue. There is one final item on your consent agenda. It is a final development plan recommended for re-approval by your subdivision committee. That appears on page 6 of your meeting agenda, item G, DP 2007-141, New Market Property Unit 8. This involves property located at 1501 Deerhaven Lane. As to the last item, we would report, if you note on your meeting agenda, an affidavit and signposting is required for that item. the staff has received that affidavit and a photo of the sign. Mr. Chairman, at this time, all of these items can be considered for consideration on your consent agenda, unless a member of the Commission or a member of the audience here today would like to have one of these discussed more fully. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Does anyone in the audience wish to hear one of these plans? Does anyone on the Commission wish to hear any of them? Okay, the Chair will entertain a motion for approval. Ms. Chair, I move approval of the Consent Agenda as presented. Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Phillips and a second by Patrick for approval. I'll vote when you can. All right. All right. Let's vote. Yeah, that's good. Raise your hand in favor. All those opposed, motion carries. All right. I guess we will begin with the ones we're going to hear today. Sharkey, I believe, is the first one. Thank you. Thank you. So I will turn to page three. We're going to look at Plan 2007-177F, Sharkey Property, Unit 4. This is located... Hold on a second. Still there? Okay. This is located off of Lee's Town Road. Before you hit the new circle road, Lee's Town Road is out. to the north. We have Meadowthorpe Shopping Center to the east of it. And then we have some LFU-CG property off to the south. This property is located off of Louie Place in Hatter in the back. We have looked at some apartment complexes down some buildings back in here. This right here is for the service maintenance building for the apartments. When this was originally approved in 07, we had a list of 11 conditions. They came back and they recorded the first lot one, which was for the service building and 08, and then they were working on the apartments. Now they've come back to subdivide that last piece of property into two lots because it needs a re-approval, because it's been approved a couple different times, and 010, and 10, excuse me. And then we added additional four conditions, which we have four conditions, the original nine, and then three additional ones. the approval of the waiver for the land subdivision regulations. This was for the apartments. Instead of creating a cul-de-sac at the end of the street, we allowed it to terminate into the apartments, so we had a waiver approved for that. And we had just two additional conditions. Now they've come back to ask for reapproval because this is now expired again, and they would like to create those two lots, subdivide that one lot into two. With that, we have one additional condition with the urban foresters' approval of the required street trees, since we are now receiving those checks for the trees. With that, we recommend it re-approval. Okay. Thank you very much. Al. Al Gross again, EA Partners. I would just echo the sentiments of staff. We've finally going to get around to recording this one day and ask for re-approval. Okay. Are there any questions from the Commission? All right. So the Chair will now entertain a motion for re-approval. Mr. Chair, I will now entertain a motion for re-approval. I'd like to recommend approval of Plan 2007, re-approval of Plan 2007-177F, Sharkey Property Unit 4. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Wilson, a second by Patrick Brewer. For re-approval, all in favor? Vote aye. Okay. It's been pointed out to me to make sure that number 5 under re-approval is included. Did you do that, Mr. Wilson? Yes. Okay. All right. Next Thank you. Next item on your agenda is at the top of page 4 under development plans item A. It's DP 2011-52, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4. This is a final development plan for property at the corner of Beaumont Center Circle and Lake Crest. On the overhead, you'll see the zoning development plan for this area of Beaumont Center. You can see the circular feature area up in the top left corner. This lot, lot four, is down in the bottom right corner at the intersection of Beaumont Center Circle and Lake Crest. The property is this corner lot right here. We have currently one approved and certified final development plan for this property. It is constructed, and this is only the second final development plan for this bank of five lots that we've seen yet. The purpose of this plan is to add 17,500 square foot building to this lot and 75 parking spaces with an access off of Lake Crest Circle. This plan was approved at your subdivision committee, subject to the ten conditions as shown in your agenda. Condition number ten related to an internal circulation for these five lots that the staff had brought up through the technical and subdivision committee initially last month. As you can see on the left-hand side, there is a common shared access easement running down through the lot line. The staff had looked at and asked through the review process that that access easement be continued through with this lot here in an effort to provide a continuous circulation path for those five lots. The applicant was not sure that they could meet that request the first month and request a postponement. Subsequently, they came back and brought us a revised plan that did show an access point in the same location and an access point into lot three in the middle, however, did not propose an access easement that was shared between the two lots. The applicant this week did bring us a revised plan attempting to meet that tenth condition. However, with this lot being representative of only one owner and this one being for two owners, the applicant had not had an opportunity at that time to get approval from both owners to do this access easement. The applicant did show a 26-foot access easement that could be accessed up and down through here. However, it wasn't centered because they did not have the approval for both owners to do that. The staff understood that this was an attempt to try to show that they are working to resolve the condition. However, the plan is different than what was shown to the subdivision committee, as well as an increase in the overall square footage from 13,000 square feet to 17,500. And that increase was done to increase the building envelope to give them a little more flexibility. I don't believe they intend to build a full 17,500 square foot building, but it does give them leeway to build within, and it did maximize the parking given that centered access. So it does give them some flexibility. The staff did give you a revised recommendation as a result of the resubmission that you see before you today with an 11th condition. Requires a certification of an easement minor plat prior to certification of this development plan. Since the applicant did add an access easement on the development plan, the only method for getting that access easement is through an easement minor plan. They can show it on the development plan, but the method for getting that is through a record plat. So we did have a condition added that they do an easement minor plan to record that easement prior to the certification of this development plan. The staff does recommend approval, subject, again, to the 11 conditions that are shown in your handout. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Any questions? Yes, Ms. Phillips. Chris, I'm sorry, I'm confused. Okay. are, as we're looking at it, the lot at 2 o'clock, 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 7 o'clock, are those already built? No, ma'am. The only one built is this one here. Nothing else has had a final development plan, and this is the first final development plan for this property right here. So nothing else, the preliminary development plan is still governing the remainder of these lots. Okay. Do we have time then to continue with the access easement later on? Absolutely. Because this is the first or the second of those? Correct. And what staff would look for is when Lot 3 comes in to see the continuation there, see it continue on through at the time of these two development plans as well as this development plan coming in. It's possible we may see these two together and this one separately, but the staff will be just. What about the access easement, the equivalent access easement off of this? Here? Yes. That is constructed. That was constructed prior to the final development plan for this building here. This part is not constructed. It doesn't look exactly like this. The development plan for this lot is self-contained and the parking is on its own lot, but the shared access and the subdivision line is right down that access easement, exactly similar to this one right here. Your red marker was fading. I'm sorry. This access easement that is constructed mirrors this access easement that is constructed along a lot line that's not shown on this zoning development plan. But the only two lots that we currently have platted. Well, all five of these lots exist. They've been platted, but they do not have final development plans yet. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Chris, thanks. One question. I appreciate what's been done here in an effort to get to the end result. But one thing keeps popping up, and it's my understanding, we keep showing that access out on Beaumont Center Circle, is it supposed to be there? Is my understanding that that wasn't going to happen? All access is subject to the final development plan review. It is not set in stone until the final development plan is approved by this body. It's preliminary. Okay. All right. And acceptance of this development plan is not an acceptance of features on another lot. Okay. Thanks. There's an applicant here. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I'm Tom Lambden with Midwest Engineering. we had hoped to have this all worked out before this meeting and submit a plan before Tuesday. That didn't quite happen. Since that time, though, we have actually worked out with the owner of Lot 7 an agreement to split the easement down the property line. And I have a plan drawn reflecting that, but I did not have permission at that time to submit it. but we're perfectly okay with doing that. And Al Gross from EA Partners is here to verify that the owner of Lot 7 indeed has given permission. But with that, we'd just like to ask approval. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Ms. Copeland. I'm having trouble because I couldn't follow the red pointer, but it looks to me like the 1,700-square-foot building has pushed the envelope to have access to Beaumont Center Circle because you can't come in in the middle of the building where the old entrance was. No, that's not right. That's wrong. But you can't circle the building because you are now 1,700 square feet, and you can't circle it. So you don't want to have a dead end. I think that there's some tradeoffs going on here. rather than respecting your buyer bought this lot knowing that these easements and reciprocity of parking and movement was in the plan. And now he's trying to get more than his share. I mean, I just don't think this is fair to the other people in that quadrant. I think you should respect Beaumont Center Drive not having entrance. I think you should connect both the back lots and the front lots and both ways on the side. In other words, north to south and east to west, you should participate. And if we don't have a plan guaranteeing that, I think we ought to postpone it. I see where you're working on it, but right now it's a pig in a poke. Sure. If I may clarify one or two things real quick. This development plan that was submitted and shown to the subdivision committee last week shows the property of the building at the 20-foot building line along Beaumont Center Circle, as does this building, shows property of the development right at the 20-foot building line. This is Beaumont Center Circle. The access essentially remains unchanged on Lake Crest. It's a shift of about 10 feet. Where the building got bigger was along the back, where they shifted the access easement further towards the common property line with the lot to the north. That allowed them to move the parking row back and increase the building size to give themselves a little more flexibility in the building envelope. The building size increased was on the back side from where it is shown right here. As you can see, there's a larger green area here that has been pushed this direction on this plan. There is no change to the access on Beaumont Center Circle or to its orientation to Beaumont Center Circle. It is right at the building line. Well, Chris, if we okay this, I understand what you're talking about. But if we okay this, then can they come back and say, oh, we've got to have access on Beaumont Center Circle? No, ma'am. And the condition number 10 is very clear in stating that the access, and the reason we wanted to show this plan again is that it's different than what was shown to the subdivision committee. The subdivision committee made very clear that they wanted the access to mirror what is done here. And so that is the condition that still has to be met. That condition is not changing on this revised recommendation, and they will still have to meet that unless this body changes it. Okay, that is the built lot is in the lower left-hand corner. Yes, ma'am. That one is built as well as the access easement that serves both lots is constructive. Right. But we need two ways to move through this property. We need to go left to right and top to bottom out of his lot. Out of this one here? It's going to go on through. I'm sorry. What? Are you talking about this access easement here? We've got to go from the upper right-hand corner down to the lower right-hand corner, and we've got to go left to right. Well, there will be future development plans to address the rest of the connections and the construction of the access easement. However, this plan is only for the one lot that we have in now. That's exactly what the plan shows. It shows an access easement. I mean, he said that they worked it out with the other landowner to share the part of the land to the left. Yeah, that's not accurate. Now, this is the zone change from, I believe, 2005. It shows the preliminary layout of these lots. Well, hello. It's that one. But that's where, that's, okay. It's this plant here, right? That's correct. You've got that one up there, which is what we saw. This is the plan that was shown to the subdivision committee last week. This is the one that they have submitted to us this week. And access easement splits onto both lots, is that right? That's correct. Well, that is, they are showing an access easement that abuts the property. The entire access easement is on this property right now. Again, they are trying to work out a fully shared one. However, he was not able to do that. So that lot next to it could use that access easement. That's correct. Okay. Well, it looks like he only has to furnish half the access easement. That's right. That's right. Okay. You aren't doing the whole thing. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I mean, it's kind of been hard. Okay. Question. You got one. Yeah. Chris, I guess, clarify once again for me. We're talking about a shared access easement. Is it going to be shared property-wise? Half of it's going to be on their property and the other half is going to be on the back property? Correct. Okay. If that's the case, does condition number 10 clarify that well enough? It does to us. It does. Okay. That was straight out of the subdivision committee and their wishes to see that access. Okay. As totally shared. Mm-hmm. If that's the case, do we still need number 11 under revised? Yes. That is the requirement that ensures the easement is actually created on a plat prior to certification. Okay. That's the part we asked for in subdivision. Yes, ma'am. But we aren't okaying this left-hand plan because it's got access to Fomont Center. They will still have to resolve and make a change to that plan in order to meet condition number 10. Okay, so we keep condition number 10. Yes, the 11 conditions on the revised recommendation all need to stay, if that is this body's wish. Okay, anything else on this? All right. Let's have a motion. Chairman. Okay, go ahead. I move for approval of DP-2011-52, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4, Lot 4, with 11 conditions as stated. That's the revised? Yes. Oh, on the revised sheet. Okay. We have a motion for approval by Ms. Copeland, second by Mr. Wilson. Vote when you can. Working. Okay. Thank you. That motion passes. Thank you. All right. Next one is Tates Creek Center, I believe. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. The next item on your agenda is on page 4, item B, DP 2011-58, Amendment Number 10 to Tates Creek Center, in this case Lot 1, formerly known as Bella Woods Shopping Center. This property has an address of 4192 Tates Creek Center Drive. The staff presented to the Commission two handouts prior to the meeting. One is on a blue sheet of paper that has a revised staff recommendation. The other is a two-sided drawing of the site in question, dated July 12th, that the applicant has submitted. The development plan that you'll be reviewing today is a revision from that reviewed by the subdivision committee last week at your meeting. and you'll note from the agenda the subdivision committee did recommend postponement of this development plan at your meeting. I'd like to orient you to the location of the subject property. The Tates Creek Center is bounded by three major roads in the community. Tates Creek Road heading south and out of town in this direction. Manowar Boulevard east-west, in this case west of Tates Creek Road. Also on the other end it's bounded by Wilson Downing Road. and, of course, Wilson Downing and Tates Creek is a major signalized intersection in this portion of the community. There's also a signal at the main entrance to the shopping center on Tates Creek Road. Lot 1 is on the opposite end of the development. It is very close to the signalized intersection here of Sarin Drive and Tates Creek Road. We have an inset, if you will, to the left of the development plan drawing focusing just on the amendment for Lot 1. We have a photo of the existing condition of the site on the overhead. There's currently a gas station on the subject property with two access points, one here very near the intersection of Sarin and Manowar, second at this location. And as I'll show you in just a moment on the development plan, a third access is proposed at this location. The development plan amendment that's before you proposes that the gas station be removed be replaced with a branch bank. That is a building of 4,120 square feet, and the existing access here will be retained and will be converted into a one-way entrance. There will no longer be an exit movement proposed at that access point. The exit movement will, in essence, be created mid-point on the lot, and that will be an exit for those using a drive-through facility associated with the bank at this location. Three drive-through lanes proposed, and those will narrow to two exit lanes onto Tates Creek Center Drive. Third access point will be retained at its current location, although obviously parking for the proposed bank, some of it will be close to that access point, as is indicated on the plan. Besides the building, there are 22 off-street parking spaces proposed. proposed, the B6P zone requires 17 for a bank of this size, so they are in surplus of the minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance here. You'll see from the revised staff recommendation on this plan that a number of the conditions identified last week by the subdivision committee have been met with this revision. Namely, those are conditions number 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14, and also number 17. That information appears on the revised development plan. From the staff's perspective, those requirements can now be deleted. All of the sign-off requirements that were present from the subdivision committee have been retained, and we would ask the other urban county government agencies to review this plan in its current form for their approval. Condition number 11 has partially been met with this submission. There is a note regarding the state of Kentucky permit that will be required for the removal of the gasoline tanks on the site, and the staff would just ask that that note be expanded to indicate at what point in the process in the redevelopment of this lot that that will occur. Slight modification to that existing note should suffice there. Condition number 15 on the list we are asking to retain. Those of you on the commission will probably recall a discussion a few months ago related to the Kroger store that anchors the shopping center in the center. There is a large addition to that store planned. We had an extensive discussion about the big box design guidelines associated with that store and also parking revisions to the parking lot. This condition basically states that if that plan is certified ahead of this plan, that the current information be provided on this plan. It's a condition that's hard to know how to be resolved today, but we want the latest information on this plan regardless of which one of those two is certified first. The discussion item related to the entrance detail here, I mentioned this is becoming a one-way movement. They have documented to the staff that the existing width of that access will not be widened. It is being shifted about two feet farther from the intersection, but it is not being widened. That was a very important point to the staff, and we are agreeable that that access point will remain on that location and that it be for a one-way movement into the site. Finally, condition number 18, we are proposing an edit to that. That is regarding the buffer along Manowar Boulevard. There is a note on the development plan indicating that that would be a 10-foot buffer. Graphically, the buffer basically is from 9 to about 2 1⁄2 feet in width. In talking with Mr. Carpenter in the Division of Building Inspection, we believe that buffer should be at least three to five feet in its minimum width, and that is affected basically in the area proposed for the dumpster and this one parking space. So that we are proposing to be a resolve issue, that that dimension of either three or five feet be retained in this part of the property, and that the conflicting note be removed, since there will not be a 10-foot buffer along that part of Manor Boulevard. With the revised submissions and with these changes, the staff is recommending approval of this development plan. We certainly appreciate the efforts of the applicant to address the issues we've raised and those by the subdivision committee last week. At this point, prior to their presentation, which I think also includes some information requested by the subdivision committee regarding landscaping proposed for the site, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission about our revised recommendation today. Any questions for Mr. Sally? Mr. Owens. Mr. Sally, you just brought it up. It looks like there's maybe three parking spaces out next to the dumpster. You said there was only one. Can you clarify what the other two are? Yes, sir. You're exactly right. There are three spaces. There is one of which that will be closer than 10 feet to Manowar. So the last condition relating to the buffer will affect one of the three. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Anything else? Ms. Coupland? Mr. Sally, just looking at the plan, I think it's really nice what they've done with the sidewalk. The sidewalk wasn't required. They're doing it, so we've started getting pedestrian circulation. This is really good. but sitting here coming around on the internal route, not on Manowar, but if we come around on Tates Creek Center Drive and we come past Kroger and I'm driving down and I want to make a bank deposit in the drive-through lane and traffic is backed up, I can't turn in the front entrance. So I go on around to where it says Creek, and the light's changing, and I scoot in real fast to get in front of the right-hand turn traffic that's coming. I'm wondering if we need, and I just want to put it in the notes, not change anything here, to ask Ms. Gleason to pay attention to that, our pedestrian circulation person, because we may need some rumple pavement there to tell people, hey, this is a cross place for pedestrians. If I could ask that we put the photo back up on the overhead. I did talk with Ms. Gleason this week about the sidewalk through the site. There is not, let me back up, the sidewalk currently ends at this location, very near the crosswalk along Man of War. But there's people in cars. And one of the issues we've discussed is how the sidewalk should be extended through this site. The applicant is not proposing to extend it close along the curb line of the road. They are, from the point it terminates, going to bring it closer to their building and then take it behind the building, still leaving at its closest point here about 15 feet set back. So the only crossing of this aisle is proposed right here, which is back from the entrance to the property. I understand that, and that's fine, except that I think that people tend to walk the shortest distance between two points. And they'll be getting out of cars there. I mean, you're going into a pedestrian zone and you made a flying run to beat the traffic turning. So I just think there ought to be possibly this is her judgment call, but I just want to bring it to the attention that that might be a good rumble kind of pavement place. You know, eight feet wide, six feet wide, something. Certainly. The minutes will reflect this discussion, then when we go to certify the plan, we'll be glad to check that with it. We don't need to do anything else. It just shows up now. Okay, thank you. Anything else? Thank you, Mr. Salley. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Would they like to? Michael Cady with Civil and Environmental Consultants. We just wanted to bring in a little bit of additional information to better show the site. It was requested during the subdivision committee that we enhance some of the landscaping and that we just show it a little bit better. So this additional plan shows that. We also have no objections to the conditions that are on the revised agenda today, and that we'll continue to work with the staff to meet all these conditions. So we request approval today. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Yes. Just one question. In that vicinity, there is another drive-in location across the street. Are you all going to close that one down, or are you going to keep that open? Across the street on Tates Creek? Yeah. Well, right in that bend of this Tates Creek Center, Chase had another drive-in deposit center. Now that's going to be, as I understood from this drawing, it's going to be brought across the street. That's correct. So the other one will close down and you don't have that traffic to deal with. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Commission? Are we ready for a motion? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, first, I'll kind of echo the sentiments of Ms. Copeland And just saying thanks for all the hard effort and work to make this happen because plans have been changing. And it's obvious that you've been working very hard and diligently to improve the site. With that said, Mr. Chairman, I'd move for recommendation. I'd move for approval of DP 2011-58 Tates Creek Center Lot 1 with the revised staff conditions. with the now number 12 conditions total. 12 or 11? I count 12. Okay. We have a motion for approval, and we have a second by Mr. Brewer. Vote when you can. And is that 11 or 12? 11. Conditions. You went the same high school I did. Eleven, twelve, we don't care. All right. Thank you. That motion passes. Thank you. It's this one. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 5. It is item E, DP 2011-61, A1 Sanitation and the Edster property. This is property located on Newtown Pike. This is the final development plan that is a follow-up on the recent zone change on this property. It is on the west side of Newtown Pike. It is next to the Imperial Trailer Park. Lexmark is across the street. Back behind this property is Douglas Park as well as an elementary school that sits back over here with access from Georgetown Street. This area was not subject to the zone change. It is B3 and cannot be developed until the Planning Commission sees a development plan on this particular property. However, there are elements that are related to the development of this property that do impact this lot, and therefore you see it on the development plan. That includes this access point as it comes from Newtown Pike, as well as this area, which is where the proposed detention basin will be located. The plan itself has a 10,000-square-foot building in this location, an 8,400-square-foot building in this location. The parking you can see in the paved area is distributed around the buildings on the property. This plan had been approved by your subdivision committee and was on the consent agenda. A revision was submitted, and staff pulled it off the consent agenda to present it to you. The primary reason for that was when the applicant corrected his parking statistics per a condition of approval, it reduced the number of required parking. And so, therefore, he has reduced his required parking to the 33, which is the required number. Now, that allowed him to bring his parking in in this area. As he was, he had parking out in here and out in here. So he's been able to condense the parking, and he was able to remove spaces from back in here. Staff sees that as a positive improvement on the circulation and the function of the property. But again, because that number originally presented to the Suburban Committee was 39 spaces, for him to have 33 approved, it did have to be presented to you today. We have handed out revised conditions to you where they have addressed some of the minor cleanup conditions. The first conditions on the plan are the eight standard sign-offs that you'll find on a development plan. There are some cleanup conditions. Several have been met. Several still remain. The note number nine, cleanup, correct plan title. They have done that by adding Edster to the title. The new note number nine, denote the tree protection area and add the calculation. Again, that's a standard requirement. You may require, pardon me, you may recall from the zone change there was an area of trees on this property where the old house used to be, and it's just a matter of them adding where those trees are and the calculation that is required. They are concentrated primarily in this area. There are trees along this border, and they are, of course, proposing buffers here per your action on the zoning plan. But again, that's just a standard requirement to meet Article 26. They have addressed the condition of removing the existing gravel. It will be a paved area. Again, as I stated, they have corrected the parking statistic, and that, again, resulted in the revised plan that you see today. Items 10 and 11 and 12 are just cleanup conditions that they need to address basic sort of requirements on the development plan, addition of the soil erosion control note. Removal of note 8, that's just a reference to building permits on a final development plan, not really necessary. And then the fire hydrant note from the zoning development plan needs to be added back on here. It just dropped off this plan. That's also a note that generally the fire department will require as part of their review on their sign off. Now there are two resolutions that we'd like to bring to your attention. Items 13 and 14. One of the interesting conditions on this property that came about through technical review was that it was discovered that a sanitary sewer runs right along approximately where this red line is on the plan. This was not originally presented on the plan and came as a bit of a surprise to the applicant. Subsequent investigation has shown it is an active line and it serves the school. The conflict, as you can see, is significant to this building and it will have to be resolved for them to build the building. Now, recently you may recall we've had some of these conflicts out at Sharkey property and some other areas. It's a matter of moving this line, relocating it physically, or removing the building from any conflict with that line. And certainly they would be allowed to build less building should they choose to do so. So it's just a matter of resolving that. The other item on your plan that needs to be resolved with this revision is they added a building envelope. Envelopes do add some flexibility in the field. Staff appreciates that. However, this envelope is really too large and it conflicts with parking. And we cannot approve that because this is required parking. So we need to resolve it. And in essence, it's just too large. We would not want to grant them the flexibility to alter this plan and have it be different from your approval. And the potential is there with the way. But that's, again, an item that staff is comfortable that can be resolved. And with that, staff is recommending approval of this plan, as did your subdivision committee. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? All right. Ms. Copeland. Yes, ma'am. How can we approve this plan if they have to relocate the line and we don't know where it's going? How that has worked in the past is they can pull a grading permit off of this plan. They build the new infrastructure. It is approved by engineering. And then at that stage, it's been approved by engineering. They've removed the conflict. And then they can pull a permit for the building itself. Those are two separate permitting actions. Okay, but we don't know where the new line's going. It will have to go to wherever it's approved by the Division of Engineering. Oh, okay. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Thank you. The retention base in the long blue watering trough for elephants, is its size big enough to carry the lot that we are not talking about? The applicant's engineer will have to answer that question. I'm sure that it probably will be, but that's an aspect of his design. All right. Yes, Mr. With respect to relocation of the sanitary sewer line, I mean, it just doesn't seem like it's very good planning to relocate it so that it still is bisecting this property. Is there any way that it can be adjusted to the property line? You mean the line? Mm-hmm. Oh, I'm sure that out in the field when the engineers look at it, they can make adjustments as to its appropriate location. But, again, that's an aspect of actual engineering design. Depth of soil, all toward, you know, there's a lot of conditions. Can we ask that? Ask that of the developer? Well, normally that is a natural follow-up that's handled in the permitting process with the grading plan. Having a sanitary sewer line under a building is pretty bad, but having it under a blacktop parking area. Which is why we don't allow that conflict not to be addressed. I mean, they cannot get a building permit until that conflict has been resolved. Well, I would just like to get the sense of the commission. I think putting it along a property easement, property line, or somehow outside of the flow of traffic is probably the best way to do it. Not necessarily. I mean, they go through parking lots all the time. You can't put any decks over them or buildings or anything like that, but it's very easy to find them when they're in the paving, and you just dig them up. You can even fix them when it's raining. You don't get in the mud and that sort of thing. So that's pretty standard. It might help us. Maybe the applicant can tell us where he's going to move it to. Yes, sir. The applicant's engineer is here, and he can answer in detail some of those questions, I'm sure, as I'm sure the government engineering department could as well, and address the challenges that may exist with this particular line. Would you like to speak to the engineering? They're here. Let's let the applicant talk. Maybe he'll clear some of this up and then. Thank you. Mr. Black. Good afternoon. Jim Black with J.E. Black. We did a boundary survey on this property some years ago, and with that did a pretty thorough literature review for any issues that pertain to the lot. We did note that there's a sanitary sewer easement running through the front parallel to Newtown Pike. There's also overhead power lines which don't appear to have an easement, but we observed those and have shown those on there. We were not aware of the sanitary sewer line that's currently in discussion because we could find no recorded easement, and apparently there is no easement for that line. After having been made aware two weeks ago that that line was there, I redid the research, still found nothing, and have posed that easement question to the appropriate departments here, and they have come back to me confirming that they have no record that there's an easement for that line either. So that partially explains why it wasn't shown and why we didn't know to deal with it. Needless to say, this started out as a preliminary plan quite some months ago now, and it would have helped had that major conflict come to light during the preliminary process. But here we are now, and we're going to try to deal with it. I do design sanitary lines, and I do design relocation of sanitary lines. It is my plan at this time subject to obviously engineering approval and surveying that the most appropriate place to relocate this is not shown on here, but this red line continues into the city of Lexington property to a point about where I'm pointing right now. And if I relocate along this side of the building, in other words, in between the two buildings that are proposed, I can then put a manhole in here and then diagonal over to the termination of the existing line. If this would then pose a problem to the development of the front of the lot, then I'll end up putting in two manholes, one to here, and then effectively tie into the existing line at this point. So we do relocate lines all the time, and I don't see this as being a significant – well, it is significant. It's a cost issue, but it's not an insurmountable hurdle to stop the project. Now, in terms of the proposed detention basin, this entire area was gravel, or is gravel, was gravel quite some time ago. It is currently gravel and I think has been that way for a long time. So when we're obviously adding impervious area, impervious area for the building, impervious area for asphalt, we're changing from hard pack gravel to hard surface as opposed to changing from grass and top soil to hard surface. So the amount of increase that we're going to get with this construction is going to be less than a normal situation where it was grass. So that's going to then result in a smaller than otherwise detention basin. Obviously this owner is not going to want to rebuild this detention basin when the front of the lot is developed. So I will take most all of this, probably 95 percent of the remaining B3 zone, consider it as impervious and size that detention basin for the entire development. In order to maintain as much land area as usable as possible, right now I'm considering that this will have vertical concrete walls. It will probably be in the range of three to four feet deep. That's deep enough that building inspection has a requirement that it's going to have to fence on top of it anyway for a safety issue. It will be depressed completely from the existing grade that's on here now. now left over from previous development is a mature taxis hedge that runs all along the front. From the perspective of the motoring public, except right at the entrance of course, which is open, the motoring public will not be able to see that basin because effectively it's down in the ground. And I do have a photograph that I took from the standard three and a half feet high position of an eye and a person in the car looking in this direction. And I have that to show if it's necessary. But most all of this is pretty much level, the the bulk of the site except for the Esther property which is depressed but that's not part of our discussion. So with this hedge being in the range right now of three, three and a half feet, it is effectively at the same, the top of it is at the same elevation as the persons traveling in the vehicles and there's no way they're going to be able to submerged, sunk into the ground, detention basin. Don't know about the future development of the front of the lot. Needless to say, because this is all one owner and one lot, in order to develop this front, a plan will have to be resubmitted to this body. And if there's any change in that taxes hedge, then it would that would be addressed on that development plan. Okay. With that, we're in agreement with the conditions and request approval. Yes, Mr. Wilson. I have one really light question. If it was not platted, how did you find the sewer line? It showed up in one of the technical review meetings. Someone with the city came in with a plan showing that there's a line there. Okay. Mr. Ellis. Mr. Black, as far as the building envelope, I believe there was a condition on there. Speaking in regards to the building envelope and conflict with the parking spaces, you're okay with taking care of that as well? Yes. Needless to say, an existing sewer line going right through the middle of a proposed building does create a little shockwave. through the design staff. And there's the potential that the owner will choose to downsize that building and not build all of it. In which case, it makes sense to take parking from facing Newtown Pike effectively to facing the other building. With that, since I was making these other changes to correspond with the request of the staff and present commission members, I added a billing envelope. And according to Mr. Martin, I got a little overly generous with that billing envelope. which he has suggested to me that some of these changes could be taken care of in a minor revision plan, and that would be the way now I would take care of it. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Cufflin, do you have a question? Yes. Mr. Black, you've come a long way on this plan. I worked hard. I know. I went out and looked at the proposed retention basin. And on the Scott Gross side, it's got a burning bush hedge, and it looks really swift, nice, and it's got the chain-link fence and so forth. I looked out. I was looking at it to see if we were creating something that was so unnatural that it would be offensive, like the front of a row of cars. I don't think there's any problem with the 30-degree angle of vision at that speed down through there except when you get and you look straight up the trough. And so I would just want to put in the notes that where the retention basin hits Newtown Pike, which is only, what, five feet wide or something, that there be a little screening there or that the shrubbery people or the tree people take that into consideration. At this time? It could be a little unnerving to get there and look straight up this long trough. This proposed entrance is existing at this time, and that it plans to be used for access to the development that we're now talking about. In addition, there's already an existing entrance on the other side that will remain, not to be used at this time, but obviously in the development of the front of the lot, it will be an access point. That leaves us with about 15 feet, roughly. I was thinking five or six. Not far in any case. It's half of a parking space, right? Nine to ten feet maybe. Okay, whatever. It's a short space. It is a short space. Currently, even though I didn't put anything on this plan that I didn't think was applicable to the development of this property, hidden underneath this proposed tree, there are currently taxes bushes in that ten-foot space. Right. And I'm just saying that they are very important and ought to be kept. Okay. There was no plan for me to take any of these out at this time, so I don't mind. I certainly don't mind making a note that that's to remain. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything else? Let's have a motion. Okay. I move for approval of DP 2011-61, A-1 Sanitation and Edster Property, with the 14 conditions as listed. Okay. We have a motion for approval. We have a second. Second. Second by Mr. Wilson. vote when you can. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Does that end our development plans and subvision plans? Performance bonds and letters of credit. Performance bonds and letters of credit. Next. Patrick. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the performance of letters of credit, bonds and letters of credit, as stated on the piece of paper I buried here somewhere. Memo dated July 14, 2011. All right. All right, we have a motion for approval of the bonds and credits, seconded by Ms. Phillips. All in favor or nay? Motion carries. All right, next we have commission items. I have a small item that we need to take care of. In the absence of our former chairman, Carolyn Richardson, her title expired. We're going to need to elect a new chair. And, of course, I'd like to do it. But anyway, I'm going to appoint a nominating committee of three people. and they are Eunice Beatty, Derek Paulson, and Carla Blanton. The three that aren't here, they get appointed. So attendance is crucial here at these meetings. meetings. And we also have a parliamentarian, which was filled by Ed Holmes. His term expired also. So they've got a couple of things to do on that. And so we'll be hearing from them in the near future. All right. One other thing. We have the public facilities review, Fayette County Public Schools. Good afternoon and happy Bastille Day. This is on page six of your agenda. It's item A under commission items. and it's PFR 2011-5 and it's a request by Fayette County Public Schools for a new band tower for Henry Clay High School and Henry Clay as you know is located at the corner of Fontaine Road and Lakeshore Drive. We've got the school property is this right here. This is Fontaine. It comes around like this and Lakeshore Drive comes around like this. The zoning in the area is mostly residential. We've got R1C zoning here all the way up to right around here. This is Lakeview Park, and then these are all single-family residences. And then we've got some R2 zoning right around the intersection here, and there are duplexes on both sides of Fontaine. And then all of this is R4 zoning, and those are multifamily residential. And then AU zoning is along here, and that's the water company. The land use element of the comp plan recommends this property for public education purposes, which it does for almost all of the school properties, and that recognizes its historic use of the property as a public high school. And it accommodates all activities and uses of Fayette County Public Schools. The campus is about 38 acres in size, just a little bit more than 38 acres, and it has about 266,000 square feet of building. We've got the main academic building here, and I believe this is the cafeteria, and this is the gymnasium. And then they've got all the sports fields, the ball fields here, football, track, tennis courts here. And there are two main parking areas, although there is other parking on the property. But this is one right here, and that's where the band practices now. And they've got their existing tower right there. And then they're proposing to practice down here, and the proposed tower is located right in here between the two canopies on the gymnasium. And they're building the new tower for safety purposes because the one that is there now is at the top of the hill. It slopes down towards Fontaine, and apparently the construction is pretty precarious. It's being tied down right now, and so I think building inspection has asked them to do a new one, and so they're proposing to do a new one on a flat area between these two canopies on the gymnasium. And it'll be protected from the elements there. building inspection and fire have both said that this is a good place to put it and it'll be safe there. And Bill, if you could put the drawing up, please, of the new tower or the plan. We've got this area right here between the two canopies. This is a gymnasium. Then there's an 11 by 11 concrete pad that it'll be built on. The tower itself will be 35 feet tall and it'll be five by nine. The only use that it will get will be by the band directors, the two band directors, or three or four staff persons, and then occasionally there will be somebody to videotape the rehearsals, but that will only be if a band director, one of the band directors, is there with them. It will be locked at all times when it's not in use, and it will only be used during the marching band season, which goes generally from July through November. They practice Mondays through Saturdays about five to six times a week and probably three to six hours a day and between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. They hope to construct this as soon as possible so that it can be there for use when school opens in August. And Henry Clay has been at this location for about 40 years, and it was previously on East Main Street where the central office is now, but the band has been part of the curriculum ever since the school has been established. And most schools that have marching bands have a band tower, and they use that to monitor practices for rehearsals and that kind of thing, for competitions and performances. Henry Clay's band is a competition band. This is not on the same scale as most of the things that you look at as far as the public schools or any kind of public facility review, but their marching band is as much a part of their curriculum and it is essential to their function as a school, I think. And it's as much a part of the curriculum as their academics. So we see this tower is part of the state-of-the-art facilities that the Comprehensive Plan references as far as what they want to do for their students, the state-of-the-art facilities for the students and the staff. And it is for safety purposes, basically, so it's a good thing to do. The Comprehensive Plan supports this. There's nothing in opposition to it, and there are several goals and objectives that are in support of this, and those are listed on pages 2 to 3 of your staff report. We're recommending approval of this because of that and because of the safety purposes. And there are two recommendations that we have. One would be for safety purposes that they get a permit from building inspection before they start construction. And then the other one is that they remove the old one if it's not already taken off the property. If you have any questions about anything, I'd be glad to answer them. And otherwise, Mr. Andrew Moore is here from the architect's office that designed this. Answer any other questions. Any questions? Would you like to comment? Okay. All right. Okay. Seeing none, we need a motion of approval. Mr. Chair, frankly, I'm surprised that something like a band tower even has to come to us. Well, it's kind of overkill, but it says in KRS 100 that any change to a property. So it's like where do you draw the line? Okay. I recommend that we accept the public facilities report 2011-5 for the Van Tower at Henry Clay High School with the two recommendations provided on the staff report. Okay, we have a motion for approval. We have a second. Second. Second by Mr. Owens. Vote when you can. Does Brian Station have one of those? I don't know. I know Paul Lawrence Dunbar does, and most of the schools do. Lafayette does. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right. It looks like we've come to the close of our agenda. Are there any staff items? I only would announce, Mr. Chairman, remind you that you do have a work session next Thursday. The topics mainly are text amendments. All right. Everyone will be sure to be there for that. Anything else? If not, we can have a motion for adjournment. Have a motion. Second. Motion carries. Thank you.