Music Thank you. September 8, 2011, subdivision hearing. I'd like to welcome the public and all commission members, and also I'd like to welcome back Mr. Frank Penn, who took a one-year hiatus on us, I guess he would say. First item of business is to approve the minutes from August 11. I believe they were emailed to everyone, and you should have them in front of you as well. Are there any changes or corrections to be made? If not, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Motion has been made for approval of minutes of August 11th. Is there a second? Second. And second. We'll vote as soon as it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Well, whoa. We're almost there. I always have this our test to get us started for the morning. We've got a couple that... Okay. Okay. So I would ask, I was told this was a test today, to see how the Grana system was working. Mr. Saleh, do we continue on? You could, Mr. Chairman, if you wish to consider perhaps postponements and withdrawals and perhaps use the electronic voting for those. Okay. Thank you. Next item would be for any postponements or withdrawals from the agenda. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Sarah Tuttle, and I represent Strand Associates. On page 2 of your agenda, under final plans, letter D, Plan 2011-90F, Coldstream Research Campus, Units 3, lots. We've revised it. It will be lots 9A and 9B. We request a postponement to the October 13th meeting. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would oppose this request for postponement? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move postponement of Plan 2011-90F until the meeting that we hold on October 13th. Okay, thank you. Motion's been made by Ms. Phillips. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. That's by Mr. Paulson. So we'll try this. Grant us again. So vote when you see it. Thank you. I'll tell you what, we'll continue on with a show of hands for maybe those that didn't get to vote. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Any other requests for postponement or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, if there are no more from the audience, the staff did receive a postponement request for the first item on your agenda, page 1, item A, plan 2011-74F for Sable Holdings 2 LLC on West Short Street. The staff received a request for an indefinite postponement of this, and staff supports that. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this? If not, I'll entertain a motion for postponement of Plan 2011-74L, Sable Holdings. Mr. Chair, I move postponement of Plan 2011-74L. Thank you. Motion's been made by Ms. Phillips and seconded by Mr. Brewer. All those in favor, we'll try Mr. Grannis again. Show of hands. I think the motion passes. Any other requests for postponement or withdrawals? If not, our next item would be for the no discussion items or the consent agenda. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm very pleased to tell you that most of your agenda items today do qualify for consideration on the consent agenda at this time. There are well over ten items, and I'd like to review those with the Commission in the audience at this time. The first appears on the very first page of the agenda item, B, on page 1, Plan 2011-79F. This is an amended final record plan for the Michael Gentry property located at 3292 Richmond Road. The next item on the agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item C, plan 2011-81F, an amended record plat for Riddell Plaza, located at 301 and 313 Burley Avenue. On page 2, item E, this plat is also on the consent agenda, plan 2011-91F, Lansdowne Subdivision Unit 8B, Lot 15, amended. This is for property at 3348 Nantucket Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item F, Plan 2011-92F, Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 7 and 9, amended. This is for property located at 1324 Viley Road. On page 3, item G, this plat is on the consent agenda, Plan 2011-93F Guest Property Unit 6H. This is property located at Needle Rush Drive and Lark Hill Lane. Also, the next item on your meeting agenda, page 3, item H, is on the consent agenda. Plan 2011-94F Guest Property Unit 11E. This is property located on Foxglove Point. All of these plats are recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. There is another plat recommended for approval of a one-year extension by your subdivision committee. It appears on page 3, item J, of your meeting agenda, Plan 2010-82F, an amended final record plat for Guest Property Unit 7A, Section 2. This involves property at 4115 Sperling Drive. There are four development plans that also appear on your consent agenda. The first is on page 4, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2011-65, Baptist Health Care System Incorporated, also known as Central Baptist Hospital, amended. This is property at 1740 Nicholasville Road. On page 4, item C of your meeting agenda, this plan is also on the consent agenda, DP 2011-76, an amended final development plan for Kirk-Levington North involving property at 3391 Tates Creek Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 5, item D, DP 2011-77, an amended final development plan for the Sharkey property, Unit 1, Lots 9 and 18, for property at 125 Louie Place. The final item on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda, page 5, item E, DP 2011-78, Lakeview Estates Unit 2, Block J, Lot 7, and Block K, Lots 2, 2E, and 3. This is an amended final development plan for property at 475, 503, and 519 Lake Tower Drive. At this time, all of these items can be considered for approval as recommended by your subdivision committee, on the consent agenda unless a member of the commission, an applicant, or a member of the audience would ask that they be removed for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience would have interest in removing one of these? Any of the commission members? Myself, I would like to have Lakeview Estates DP 2011-78 heard. I think it's significant enough to just warrant that. So, otherwise, removing DP 2011-78F, Lakeview Estates, I would entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda with the exception of DP 2011-78. Thank you. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. The motion has been made by Patrick Brewer and seconded by Derek Paulson. Please vote as it shows up on the screen. Slowly? No? Show of hands for those that haven't. Okay. There we go. We get them all finally. The motion does pass for approval of the consent agenda. So we'll move to the first item and let the staff get ready. Yes. Yes. Next one? Yes. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the first item on your agenda today to be presented is on page 3 of your agenda. It is item I, Plan 2011-95F, Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, amended. This is an amended record plat for property located out in the Tuscany development. The record plat you see here, which is a close-up of the section, the plat itself deals solely with the proposed street extension for Old Rosebud. I did want to give you an overview of where you were located. Here is the Tuscany development in this area. This is the Hamburg development through here. We have Winchester Road at the top of this map. Here's Walmart and Lowe's located here. This is Sir Barton Way as it comes down through and serves the two developments, Hamburg and Tuscany. I-75 is here to the east. Over here to the west, this is Liberty Road. Down right in here is an area you'll hit Man of War over in here. The Liberty Road, as it continues down, the elementary school is located approximately down in this location. And you can see here is Starshoot. Starshoot now connects to Liberty Road there at the elementary school. The Platten Question and Old Rosebud, I've highlighted in orange here for you. Old Rosebud currently extends from Sir Barton. Actually, it extends across Sir Barton down to Garden Ridge. comes up here, currently terminates at this point. This is Ogden Way, which comes down to Starshoot. Here is Flying Ebony as well that comes down to Starshoot. This is the West Wind subdivision that you can see here with its street system and the connections that currently exist. This, again, is Tuscany with its current street system. This, again, Ogden Way up through here, you have the intersection. This is continuing at this point. It will be known as Villa Medici. Over here at your record plat, you can see again, here is the section on this plat of Old Rosebud. Here is Ogden Way, Villa Medici, Old Rosebud at this intersection. Flying Ebony here to the west. You may recall this is the trilogy development you just recently approved for the nursing home and associated assisted living. And then there was an assisted living facility, an apartment building, located here on Lot 1. You see this plant before you today primarily for, well, not for a single issue. And that is in constructing Old Rosebud here in this section, this extension, they are requesting a waiver of your subdivision regulations. You do have before you a report on that waiver, as well as you'll find two emails that staff has received. They're separate. They're not attached to the report, but you will find those at your seats. They are from residents in the West Wind subdivision, and they do express support for the waiver request. The gist of the waiver request is to remove the sidewalk along the southern portion of Old Rosebud. The standard requirement of any street under our subregs is to have a sidewalk on either side of the street. Old Rosebud is a collector street. It was shown on the comprehensive plan. Collector streets are always demonstrated on the comprehensive plan. that's what i demonstrated here here's old rosebud here's the extension that we're talking about it's designed to eventually come over here to liberty road and it's still shown as serving the development in this direction and they again this is these are proposed alignments this alignment that you see before you today and on the final record plan has been established on previous plans both preliminary subdivision, final development plan, and now with this extension, you see it being established on this record plat. The applicant has requested the waiver based on hardship. There is some severe topography in the area, particularly along the southern border. We highlighted in light yellow on that plan, you can see the areas where there is a problem with steep slope with the topography. In order to build the sidewalk on the platform for the road, in order to grade it out, meet that requirement, it will require a retaining wall here and a retaining wall here. this is this retaining wall would be approximately 200 feet in length above grade it will be about two feet high facing the backyards of these west wind properties this retaining wall is approximately 240 feet in length it will vary and this is the area of the most extreme topography There is drainage through here that runs down to the creek and to the greenway that exists. There is drainage that comes through here. Here is the overall drainage pattern. There is a greenway here, and there is a trail system in this greenway. This wall could vary in height from 5 to as much as 7 1⁄2 feet in height above grade, again facing the rear of these lots. Now the wall itself, if constructed, if you don't grant this waiver, it will be in the right-of-way. It's not going to be on the adjoining people's property, but it will be on the right-of-way, and that raises issues with the staff in terms of maintenance and that sort of thing. We, in reviewing this, considered what was available to pedestrians in the area and the overall system. Again, you can see there's a well-established street system in the area. There are sidewalks in the developments. Along this development, you will still have a sidewalk on the northern side. There will be a six-foot sidewalk. The cross-section in this area for old Rosebud, 70 feet of right-of-way, 40 feet of pavement, six-foot sidewalk, and eight-foot utility strip. That will be what they have on this side. On this side, there will be no sidewalk should you grant the waiver. Again, there will be one here. The staff in reviewing this agreed that the topography was a serious problem to overcome, having to build a retaining wall and that sort of thing for a sidewalk when there was an alternate way to answer or to meet pedestrian needs in the area. we felt that that was a significant problem. We were concerned, however, about pedestrians crossing Old Rosebud. That was another reason why we didn't want to have partial sidewalks on this side. We agreed with the applicant that if you're going to have a waiver, let's just take the entire sidewalk off this street. It is over 1,366 feet right here, this length. staff believes that this four-way stop offers an excellent opportunity using signage crosswalks other methods if necessary to encourage pedestrians and others to cross right here we would also and we have recommended in your report that the same be done here when this is built now the important aspect of that is although you see old rosebud extending all the way to fine ebony the property for trilogy ends right here in conjunction with that fine ebony here in red it's not been built there is a surety to see that it will be built but at this time it has not been built and we're not aware of the time frame of when it will be built. We anticipate that the applicant may also wish to bond this final portion as well and just build the frontage necessary to serve these two lots. So staff is concerned that at such time when this is finally coordinated and completed that we also get the same consideration for pedestrian safety at this intersection as well. I would add one other item that is in your report, and that is the greenway system. Again, there is a trail in that greenway. Old Rosebud is shown on your greenway master plan as part of that trail that will take pedestrians and others using the trail down to Sir Barton Way. So you have a greenway here with a trail. It's been partially built. It's been built back near the school. This section has been identified as part of that trail system to bring people back down to Surbarton. So, again, with the trail system, the sidewalk system, we do believe the public facilities are adequate. but we just want to be sure that there's appropriate safety measures taken at these intersections. With that, staff is recommending approval of the waiver. We have two conditions. Those conditions are what I just outlined to you, that the appropriate signage, crosswalks, or other methods be denoted on the plan at those two intersections, Ogden Way and Fine Ebony. I would also add that on your agenda, you see a postponement recommendation from your subdivision committee. As you may be aware, we get waiver requests the day before subdivision committee. That waiver request was still under review. We had several meetings and extensive discussions about that in-house. So at that time, we did not have a firm recommendation on the waiver, so therefore the committee did recommend a postponement. Staff, along with our recommendation for approval of this waiver, is recommending approval of the record plat. The conditions that you see are very basic standard conditions. They're sign-off conditions with the exception of correcting one note on the plan, a very minor correction. And then of course provided that this body does in fact approve the waiver. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Yes, one from Ms. Martin. Tom, the email that we got spoke to, how do they phrase it? They want a screen of trees, planting a screen of trees. Is that something that the developer is intending to do, or is that something that this particular property owner is intending in lieu of that sidewalk? It is our understanding they would like to see that. We're not aware that the developer intends to do that. As I stated, that will be right-of-way, the majority of that. And certainly screening in the right-of-way, we would have concern about maintenance and responsibility. Yeah, well, that's what I was trying to clarify. That's not an ordinance standard, that in lieu of this sidewalk, we would then require screening, some sort of vegetative screen. You could. This body could certainly recommend that and make that a condition of approval. The staff did not feel that it was actually necessary, although we wouldn't salute any private efforts and private maintenance of such a screen. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Coppola? Yes, Mr. Martin. I was out there walking up and down, and I think it's pertinent. You mentioned it. There's a nursing home on the side where it says Old Rosebud. But on the Flying Ebony side of the map there, those are all backyards that back up. There is a lot of cut and fill. How did that happen? I mean, it is extreme in that area. I will have to allow the applicants representative to address that. Well, it's not necessarily grading with the land. It's changing the landscape. But there is an opportunity that if we put in an underpass underneath old Rosebud for the walking trail that's going up the blue line that's going up Flying Ebony, it's a natural there and we could direct the traffic, the foot traffic, to come up on the nursing home side. That would help with conflict and also it would be really neat to snow ski through there in the wintertime. so is there a way that we could do that and we'll talk about this later i'm sure i'm sure it's possible to discuss that sort of thing it is off site of this particular plan well so is building flying ebony yes ma'am and that's one reason resolving the actual way that the greenway trail system will work is actually much more connected to the fine ebony connection than it is the old Rosebud. Yeah, but if we're going to put a disclaimer in there that we want to see Flying Ebony built, it looks like we could put a disclaimer in there that we want an underpass to old Rosebud for the pedestrian trail. Now, let's go to another problem, though. If we put in the retention basin, I mean not the retaining wall, then we have increased the erosion hazard of the stream that's going behind those houses parallel to O Rosebud. Did anybody look at that? Well, I believe it's an aspect of the topographic problem. And, again, why they're asking for waivers, they do not want to build the retaining walls. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, we'll ask for that. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. Penn. Mr. Penn. Before you leave, Tom, you mentioned the bonding for the flying ebony situation. Why did you mention that it was part of this development plan? We, as a staff, believe that that connection is very important, and also because that intersection will have a bearing on pedestrian safety since they are requesting a waiver of the sidewalk, and there will be pedestrians, we assume, on Fine Ebony coming to Old Rosebud, we felt that was relevant to this plan and to this waiver request. So the bonding would be part of this plan? Bonding is already available to them. Okay. And Fine Ebony, that connection is, has been bonded. Assurity is in place. And this applicant has the ability to bond Old Rosebud as well. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? If not, thank you. Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. First off, that section of Flat Ebony is bonded by different developers. That's why it's always brought up. They want the connection, but it's not under this developer's ability. With that, we were in agreement with the conditions and the two additional notes to be added to the plan with the approval of the waiver. I guess if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Yes. Yes, Mr. Kaley, were the lots and the people occupying those houses that backed up to O'Rosebud sold to them before all of that steep slope occurred? I didn't do West Wind, but those houses and lots have been recorded prior to our construction. And interestingly enough, when you do a plat and you know a road's coming in, you usually have easements for construction access so you can grade and get in there. Those lots were recorded without an easement in the rear yards for any construction activity. So anything we do with the extension of rosebud has to stay in that right-of-way, which is why we can't grade into their backyards, and all the work has to stop before we get to their fence. Not being able to do a lot of grading to feather out the edges is where you need that wall. It was brought up in subdivision or in technical. If you put a wall in there, those people's yards have two sidewalks, front and back. you're typically required to maintain your sidewalks out in front of your house, and then you've got this wall and a sidewalk that's technically under your jurisdiction. Well, I'm leaning toward not building the sidewalk, but I think it's only fair to those property owners that they have some compensation, some remediation to the fact that they are looking straight at a wall of dirt that could erode and be a problem to maintain. I mean, it could be a real, I mean, you can't mow it, it's so steep. Agreed? I don't believe the final grade's in there. I think it can be a three-to-one, which is typically where you end your easy mowing versus your hard mowing slumps. My mower, I would not want to mow it. And with a push mower sideways. Yes. Okay. So have you seen it recently? Yes. So what would you suggest would be a nice thing to do so that they do not look at an eyesore of washing dirt? Well, developers are agreeable to plant trees in that area. We have to make sure it's what traffic engineering everyone is going to be okay with because it will be putting trees in the right-of-way, additional trees. Like the sidewalk, it would be those owners' responsibilities because it would essentially be their front yard tree, the same as the sidewalk would have been. So at some point, we've got to make sure everyone's agreeable to what we're trying to add to this area. And the areas you're talking about is really the last two lots down near where Flying Ebony will connect. their backyards are they got a lot of tree they've got there's a fence up there wire fence the black rail plank on top horse farm looking fence and there's a creek between their houses and this property as well it's i mean their backyards are established that'd be another reason we wouldn't want to go in there and grade through i mean i don't know i don't know if that fence will stay what they will want to do with their backyards with that double frontage. I imagine we'd all do something different if it was ours. I'd probably replace it with a privacy fence because there's going to be traffic back there, but I mean, I don't know. I'm worried about the wash of the dirt. There's nothing there. It's all fresh fill. There's nothing there to stabilize it. If you don't... It has seed and protected. Once they finish the work, they have to put seed down in the straw that you saw, so there's going to be, I mean, that's part of the process, so there will be graphs. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this point? No? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kale. I would ask if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request. If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion to the commission members that and or a motion. Yes, ma'am. This is to my fellow commissioners. I think it's imperative that we do whatever we can to get an underpass in there and make lemonade out of bad lemons because this is a really deep-filled area that's coming right up against those people. And it's a natural, though, for an underpass for the pedestrian right-of-way. I don't know how we do it, but I think that's a good thing. And on those bottom two lots, there ought to be some special, out-of-the-ordinary landscape that the city says you have to do. And they can best judge what that would be. it's probably something in the line of what you'd use on an interstate like Crown Vetch or something that would hold it. Any other discussion? No. I would have one question, I guess, for the staff probably more than anything in regards to a possible underpass. Since that is off-site, I would suggest I guess that would come with another development plan later? I believe it would come with another development plan and be associated also with plans for the trail system as well and what would be the most appropriate way to provide a connection. As I stated before, the trail system on the master plan does follow the greenway, and it is designed to come up to Old Rosebud and take people on Old Rosebud. This is not actually a part of the master greenway plant system. It's part of the drainage system and the greenway system for Tuscany. So again, I think the primary purpose is to bring people up to Old Rosebud and allow them to come this way on the plant. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from anyone? Yes. Ms. Pagan. Is it a correct assumption that the two memos that we received in support are residents that back up to this area? Yes, ma'am. And it looks like there are four. Am I correct? Are there four? There are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 residential lots that are impacted by this extension. This is a homeowners association green space lot right here. So there are actually, the staff believes there's 9 that are impacted. Now, the walls themselves that will impact neighbors, this one starts a little bit past the intersection. So it impacts these lots in here. And then, as you can see, these last two lots are very much impacted by the grade and the retaining wall. So we just don't have any response from the other residents that may be impacted by this? We have not only heard anything except from these two. We actually contacted the attorney who represented the homeowners during the trilogy case and have heard nothing. Mr. Martin, Trilogy case, Trilogy is the nursing home across the road? Nursing home assisted living, it's a combination facility, yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Penn? So, Tom, that field there is on the easement, so it's the city's responsibility, or is it the developer's responsibility? Until it's completely built and turned over to the city, it's the developer's responsibility. But once it's built, it becomes ours. And what would the city require before they would accept it? I can't address that fully. You'd have to ask engineering and those. Because I don't think we ought to get too far down the road do we know what the city would require. And maybe a ruler can answer that. I don't know. As you're aware, we have manuals that govern the development process that they're required to meet. that spells out the process and right down to the types of materials for ground cover, et cetera. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Penn, did that answer your question, or do you want to hear from engineering? If there's somebody who can answer that, if not, I guess I'll have to look at the engineering manuals, but I didn't know that was part of their homework requirement for this day. Anything else? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any other questions? If not, I would entertain a motion. And as far as the motion is concerned, we can have one motion to include the waiver, mentioning the two requirements, or we can have separate motions. First, the waiver, recognizing the two requirements, and then the motion for the plan itself. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Are you finished? Yes. Well, recognizing that there's a lot of things that we would like to do with this, I think there's very little that we can do because the things that we want to do are off-site. So unless there's further discussion on this, I don't see what else we can do. I move for approval of Plan 2011-95F, Tuscany, including the waiver request and the two requested denotes. The two requirements. Yes. Okay. Motion has been made by Mr. Brewer for approval, Plan 2011-95-L with the waiver. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Spadey. If there's no further discussion, I'll ask for a vote. I guess we can try Mr. Grannis again. If not, we may have to have a show of hands. A combination, I think the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Remins. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'd like to present our next item. It's on your agenda on page 4, at about the middle of the page. It's DP 2011-62 for Rydell Plaza, Lots 1 and 4. We have passed out to you and should be at your seats already. a revised staff recommendation on this property on the brown sheet. Also at your site should be a part of the zoning ordinance, Article 15-7, which also has an exhibit of the proposed building on the back of it. Those will be the handouts that are already at your site. First, I'd like to orient the commission to the subject property. It is located at the address 301 and 313 Burley Avenue. The property is about 1.3 acres. Burley Avenue is, if you followed Burley Avenue out, it would connect with South Broadway. It's essentially off of South Broadway, halfway in between Virginia Avenue and Waller Avenue. So it's right in the middle of those two major collector streets. This property is about four property lengths back from South Broadway. There is a commercial site there, so it's a little bit longer. Currently, this is two pieces of property. The first property, and I'll orient you to the aerial photograph, we have Burley Avenue here. South Broadway would be towards the top of the screen. For one of the pieces of property, it currently has a church on it, the Jehovah Witnesses Building. And that church came in off of Burley Avenue and had parking to the side and to the rear. And this is also part of this plan would be Burley Park. That's an LFUCG park. The applicant has a plan that's independent of the development plan that's in front of you today. They are proposing to replace Burley Park with a different location on American Avenue, just one street over. The Parks Department is in favor of this, and the applicant will be building portions of that park, and they are going to swap the new park for the old park as far as the properties go. As far as this development plan goes, the swap that is occurring, that's happening through the council, and it's independent of whether this development plan can be independent of that. Because it is dependent, your decision on this development plan can be independent of that because it is dependent upon the applicant getting control of Burley Park before we certify the plan. As this plan went in front of your subdivision committees, there were several questions that gave way to a recommendation of postponement as it appears on the agenda. The first one was this plan, it was unclear as to whether with the original submission, whether it met the minimum required open space for the existing R4 zone. The R4 zone requires 20% open space. Since censure committees, the applicant has submitted a revised plan. They have also submitted an exhibit here where they looked at their interior landscaping and their usable open space and their required zone-to-zone screening on there to show that their proposed plan does meet all of the minimum requirements. This is right on the minimum 20%, but the reason why we colored it up this way, there are certain things that do not count towards usable open space, and that's like the front yards for this property, and those don't count as open space in any R4 zone. So over here, you can see all of the green that would be essentially grass. on this subject property. Over here, the yellow is where this plan meets its minimum 20% required usable open space. The staff is satisfied that it meets that minimum requirement, and furthermore, we were able to meet with the applicant, the developer, and the developer's architect, and they had to discuss some of the other discussion items that were with the original submission on this. If I can refer you now to the handout, you can see that there have been several conditions that were cleanup conditions that the applicant has gone ahead and done those. If you look at items 10 through 15, they were all cleanup conditions that needed to go for the development plan. They have met all of those, and we can delete those. Number 10, new number 10, would be provided that the Planning Commission approves the amended final record plat that addresses the conflicts. That was on your consent agenda today, so that one has been taken care of. Number 11, new number 11, gets us into the four discussion items. The first one would be discuss compliance with Article 15.7 of the zoning ordinance. And this is where I will refer to the handout with Article 15-7. Anytime you do residential development inside the infill and redevelopment area, there are compatibility standards for how the buildings can be built, some minimum standards for those buildings. In this particular case, those standards are set up into 15-7A and 15-7B. 157A is any new residential structure or additions onto the front wall plane of any structure. 17B is for group residential projects. In this particular case, with the review of this development plan, it brought forward an interesting question. Because 157A, when those regulations are written, you can really see how it was meant for compatibility standards of single-family homes and duplexes. And if you look at 157B for group residential projects, you can see how those compatibilities are good for apartment complexes. In this particular case, we have a single apartment building on a single lot, so it's not a group residential project. So from a regulatory standpoint, only 157A, this is only subject to those regulations. However, we did bring up at the time of the subdivision committee, should we look at 15.7B, kind of knowing that they were intended for apartments, should we look at those regulations also and how they might apply to the proposal? I'm happy to say that the applicants submitted an exhibit of their elevations of the proposed building at this time. Since we've met with the applicant, I believe the building's changed like three times since I met with them originally. And all of those were being because of different characteristics of the site, zoning ordinance regulations, everything, building code regulations, things of that nature. As we've looked at this, I'm happy to say that as proposed, I believe that this meets all of the regulatory requirements of 15.7a. We are recommending that they document that so that things like the 10% transparency so that we can get those calculations prior to certification. But just my experience from looking at elevations without doing the math, I'm pretty sure that first floor is going to meet that 10% transparency. As far as meeting 15-7B, we were looking at those right there in the middle of 15-7B, items number 3 and 4. That's the only two of those regulations that this proposal would not meet if they did apply, but they're not far off. 3 says that anytime you have an apartment building that's facing the street and a group residential project, the entire length of the wall could not be more than 160 feet. The applicant's proposed building is 195 feet, not a significant difference from the 160 feet. And also you can see both from the elevation and from the development plan that there are changes in that front facade. as it pulls out the number four says that you wouldn't be able to have any one segment of the building that would be more than 40 feet long and in this particular case this proposed building almost meets that the middle segment i believe is about 60 to 65 feet long so it's relatively close not close i think it's close enough that the and and those are not regulations that the staff is willing to recommend approval of this plan. The most important thing about the compatibility of this site is, as you know, with many, many apartment buildings, there's usually a desire to put parking all the way around the entire building so that everybody can park as close to their front door as they can. And if you look at the neighborhood and look at the other commercial businesses that are along here, The most important thing that they did is they didn't put any parking up in front of this building. All of the parking is to the side and rear of the building. And that is probably the number one thing that they could do for this development to kind of keep it in character with other developments along Burley Avenue and in the general vicinity. I'm out of breath. I was talking too much without taking a breath. To go on to the next discussion items, discuss the provision of usable open space. The applicants have shown that they are meeting their minimum 20% usable open space. They have provided a small basketball court in the back that, of course, counts towards the usable open space so that this site would have an on-site recreational facility and usable open space. There is also a larger than required area along the back here to kind of connect up the detention basin and detention easement with the subject property. It had always been a question before because with the original submission, we just didn't have the calculations. They weren't submitted on the original submission. Now we have them. The staff feels confident that we can delete the discussion item, but that leads us also into the next discussion item about the possible need for stormwater improvements in the area. The subject property, if we could put the aerial back up. There we go. It's a little bit grainy on this, but the subject property is bounded right here. There's an existing warehouse-type building that faces Simpson Avenue. Right here in this dark area that you see, that is an existing open channel that's going through there. That's the upper reaches of the Vons branch of Wolf Run Creek. that this area, according to the FEMA maps, is not in a FEMA floodplain, but that's not because there's not a floodplain associated with it. The flood study stops across Harrodsburg Road. So it doesn't necessarily mean that there's not any flooding, but there is no FEMA regulatory floodplain for the subject property. The staff brought up this as a discussion item. because we didn't want to just assume because it's not on the map it's not a problem. We wanted somebody to look into it and tell us, yes, it's a problem or no, it's not. And the applicants have done that. They've submitted a drainage study for the subject property. The results of that are that the existing detention basin for the church is actually going to increase in size, which also, by the way, helped them out with their open space requirements. So it kind of got them double bang for their buck on that one. This is a detention basin. It is proposed to increase in size a little bit from what's there today. Essentially what was there was a very small, deep, little one, kind of maximizing the amount of parking that was on the property. This one is going to be much wider and more gentle. it's also picking up the additional drainage that comes through here the it appears that the drainage studies that this is not going to be a problem for the subject property if you have any more questions about the specifics of that study I think the applicant would be able to talk about that more than I would be able to but the staff is satisfied that this item could come off as a discussion item the final the final discussion item was discuss LFUCG ownership of Burley Park it's very seldom that you have a development plan in front of you that is owned by the city that the applicant is proposing development on and at the time it was originally filed there was not there was a lot of questions about what was going to go on between the swap for the new park on American Avenue versus the Burley Avenue. On this one now, that issue is also a condition of the final record plan, which was approved, and how we are dealing with that is just having the applicant document ownership of Burley Park prior to certification. Quite honestly, that's the easiest thing for them to do because if they tried to get the mayor to sign this development plan as part ownership, then they've got to go to council anyway to get council approval for the mayor. It's easier just to have the property in hand before we sign this plan. It does not need to be in hand today as you approve the plan because of this condition. With all of these revised conditions, the staff is recommending approval. This is for a 24-dwelling unit apartment building. The building itself would be three stories and about 39,000 square feet of building. If you have any questions for me on the development plan, I'd be happy to try and answer them. I do know that the applicant's representative is here. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. We do have a question from Mr. Brewer. Jim, just one quick one. If I understood you correctly, we've already covered 10 in the consent agenda, so that can come off? It could come off or it can stay on. It doesn't really matter. It would be one of those easiest conditions for me to mark off afterwards. Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Penn. Jimmy, are you going to put a condition that the developer owns, the swap has been made, and he owns that piece of property before the certification? Yes, sir. It won't be discussed. What would it be? On the revised recommendation, new number 12, it would be document ownership of Burley Park prior to this plan certification. Thank you. I was looking to wrong. Any other questions? Mr. Emmons, I do have two. When you started talking about parking and looking at the elevations, I'm just curious. I like the fact that there's no parking in front. Is the rear elevation similar to the front elevation? I believe it would be. This is a fairly common building style. Obviously, as you can see. Keep people from walking all the way around. As you can see, the development plan has got two common hallways that people would enter so that if you lived in these 12 units, you'd enter through that entrance or those 12 units. Also, as far as the new proposed park, should we address anything as to when the proposed park should be built? I don't think that we need to. I believe that that's all taken care of through the council action on the property swap. And those details, that, of course, has to be approved through the council. And the Parks Department and the Law Department are working in conjunction on that one. By simply making them document that they own the property before we sign the plan means that all of those details will have been taken care of. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Evans? Yes, ma'am. You probably addressed this early on. What is the zoning of this property? If I missed it, I apologize. It is zoned R4. Okay, so the park property is zoned R4? The park is zoned R4 also. This area was zoned R4 in, I believe, the late 70s. Thank you. Anything else? Captain? Again, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We're in agreement with the 12 conditions. One quick correction. The swap land is to be on Legion Drive, not American, one more street over. And we have been working with the parks and the council, and it looks like everyone's receiving that positively. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, please. Oh, I'm sorry. You are there. Mr. Cayley. Okay, Burley Avenue is going up a hill, and if I remember right, it's been a month or two. It slopes off at the back. How does this plan fit on there? The back of this lot has got an existing drainage easement, and we're putting a proposed detention easement in there as well. No, I mean how does the building fit on there? How can you put a long, low building on a sloping lot two ways? Well, it's hard. Okay. The architect is hoping that we can find a way to get him a slab. We might have to have a break in the middle and step it down a little bit. Yeah, that's one of the fun things that they get to work on. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Paulson. Roy, where is the park on Legion Drive going to be? I mean, I'm looking at Legion Drive here. It's not a very long street. I'm just curious. Is it behind the, it looks like an ambulance? Behind the first building, there's green space opposite Arby's. Thank you. Yes, ma'am? Just curious, what's the utilization of the park currently? Burley? They have a basketball court and a few playground equipment pieces in the back. As far as Parks and Rec were concerned it was pretty underutilized and they're thinking this new site will be a little more visible and should hopefully attract more people to it. Anyone else? If not I'll ask if anyone in the audience audience would like to speak on this request? If not, I will close this part of the hearing and open it up for further discussion from the Commission and or a motion. Yes, ma'am. Move approval of DP 2011-62 Rydell Plaza, Lots 1 and 4, with the 12 staff conditions. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval of DP 2011-62. Is there a second? Second. Second, Mr. Paulson. If there's no further discussion, I'll ask for a vote, and we may have to have a show of hands in addition to Mr. Grant. and a show of hands thank you motion passes Mr. Martin, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, next item on your agenda is on page 5. It is item E, DP, 2011-78, Lakeview Estates, Unit 2, Block J, lot 7 and block K, lots 2 and 2E and 3 amended. It is in fact an amended final record plan. Development plan, pardon me. I was going to give you the big picture of the photo up on the aerial and I neglected to bring Jimmy's laser with me in order to use these often as you know. So here is Richmond Road, Lexington Mall, where Southland Christian Church is being built. You have Lake Shore Drive up through here that connects to Richmond Road. There's Henry Clay High School. Here's the water company and its property. Here is the property in question on your development plan. This little half-moon street is the adjoining property of Lake Tower Condo. I'm sorry. You could hear me though, couldn't you? I thought so. The volume of my voice usually isn't a problem. And of course, here's the reservoir and this area. This is a park, a nice little park that exists in the area. And apparently that's the flooding softball field that you may have read about for the Henry Clay girls. The development plan, again, that you see before you today, is for the apartment complex. It was built in the 70s. Here are the buildings associated with the area of this amendment, the associated parking. There's 195 units. There's 384 bedrooms with the associated parking. It is currently being rehabbed and remodeled. It was an abandoned property, so it is being brought back on the market. The purposes of this plan are actually small but interesting. There's going to be some work done in the right-of-way of Seton Drive here to help control traffic and create a gateway entrance into the area. They are proposing to do changes up in this area to parking, and this is Manor Drive. This is also currently public right-of-way. So this little area right in here will have to be closed prior to certification of this plan in order to allow it to be developed as this plan proposes. They have applied. They are undergoing the process of blue sheet review that will be presented to the council. And it will be closed. We're assuming it will be closed. And then it will, again, allow them to develop this additional parking. One interesting aspect about this as well is this little area that you see is actually off the plan. However, the applicant has agreed to build this parking lot to serve that public park that I pointed out to you, that heavily treed public park. There is a trail on that park, and they would like to have public parking provided. I believe there's a small playground as well off this part of Manor Drive. Now, this will remain public. This will remain public. they do want to do some changes to it and that will require an encroachment permit to allow them to do that. So again, this little building is being added. This is an exercise facility. So there's not a lot of physical changes being proposed on this plan actually because of the remodeling the buildings and doing that work. This area right down here, by the way, is known as the duck pond. The plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. The conditions that you see are very standard sign-off conditions for a final development plan. Through your first seven, again, they are the standard types of conditions that you see, There's a couple of little cleanup conditions of clarifying notes and adding meets and bounds information. They do need to resolve some gatehouse easement conflicts, and I'll briefly point these out to you. In this area coming through here, not only is there a public street currently existing, there is a 100-foot KU transmission easement. There is a Columbia Gas transmission easement. We have a little sewer easement, which is the least of their problems through here. But those utilities, of course, do not like structures being added in their easements. They don't want to be responsible for them. So the applicant is going to have to work that out with the appropriate utility companies as to whether or not they will allow the gatehouse. Now, the gatehouse are not to be occupied. They are ornamental structures to help emphasize that you're entering into a new development and that sort of thing. The remaining conditions that you see do include the Division of Parks and Recreation's approval of this plan. We don't see them on very many plans, but that relates to the off-site parking that's going to be provided. We would like to see that resolved, and the Division of Parks is therefore a sign-off on this particular plan. The median changes and gatehouse improvements that I mentioned, those are also a resolution item because they have to receive encroachment permits and be allowed to do that. So it's just a simple matter of having that resolved. We do have a reference to resolve the timing of the development with the street closure. That is because that is a council action. As I stated, that is currently going through that process. And once the council closes it, then it will revert to the joining property owners. Staff will have to receive a plat on that property. Now, it can be a minor plat. It's not a plat that this body will necessarily see, but a minor plat will have to be submitted once that is closed. At that time, staff is going to have an easement established so that Manor Drive will continue to provide public access through that property. As you look at the plan and as you look at the overhead, there are only two public streets that serve that entire development. Staff was concerned for the provision of public service that we maintain at least two entrances into the property, and that will accomplish that once that plat has been approved and that easement established, and that will be reflected on this development plan prior to its certification. Again, your subdivision committee has recommended approval, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions at this point? No, if not, applicant? I'm Jeremy Owens, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. Tom pretty much summed up the plan. We've met with about everybody in the city, I think, about this from the agency's perspective, the water company, KU, all the staff levels here, local government. and we've submitted plans for the modifications of Manor Drive. I'm preparing to submit plans for the encroachment on Seton Road. Probably do that today or tomorrow or Monday as soon as I can communicate with Kevin and Wagner. and we're just trying to bring this development into 2011-2012 conditions, bringing the parking up to current code and current performance requirements for level of apartment living as we're hoping to create here. We've worked with the Parks Department. I just received yesterday or today the latest plan for their off-site parking lot that we're agreeable to helping them with and connecting the trails from the park through this five-unit development and onto the lakefront. we're proposing a new fitness center that will essentially be on the footprint of the old boiler facility that was there that is no longer efficient for today's utilities. And the office building and pool area, the office is going to be rebuilt basically on the same footprint with a new structure. The pool, they're going to use the existing pool but update it with some newer concepts in pool design and pool construction. And that's about it, just tweaking the parking in the existing areas to make it function better, provide additional parking where it was woefully under-parked when my client purchased the property, and just that's about it. And I've got some neighbors from the, I think most of them are from the townhouse neighborhood, and I take any questions and if they have any comments, they can come. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Yes, Ms. Copeland? The person that's developing this or the firm that's developing this, have they done other projects here in town? They have. Alan Schubert is the principal partner in it, and he has other investors with him, local and out of town. But he has developed Beaumont Farms Apartments in Beaumont, and he's done a number of projects in Lexington. He's a Lexington native, did a lot of development in Houston, and is now relocated to Louisville. He's currently rehabbing the historic home. That was the old Lafayette School, Lafayette Academy, on Upper Street at 333 South Upper Street. And he's about to finish that up, I'm sure hopefully from his perspective immediately. He has other properties in the Chevy Chase area that he's owned and maintained, and so he has a definite presence in Lexington and a real interest in doing well in Lexington. Thank you. Any other questions? As far as, oh, I'm sorry, yes, Maureen. Go ahead. I just wanted to applaud the developer. I love to see this kind of taking an existing property and just making it a little more livable. I know that that area has had its issues in the past, and as someone who utilizes this area on a regular basis running, I'm really excited that this redevelopment is going on and applaud the developer for taking the risk. Thank you. He appreciates that. Anything else? I'll ask as far as your supporting cast there. I don't know if they're supporting. I think some of them are supporting. Okay. I hope they're all supporting. Anyone else wish to speak? I'll just leave it at that. No? I would say that I did ask this to be heard simply for the reason that Ms. Phillips stated in the fact that we often talk about and hear about infill and redevelopment, and it's kind of in a defined area. This is definitely outside that, but I think it definitely merits a nice redevelopment-type project. And it's offside off this development plan, but if I'm not mistaken, he's got the adjoining property that he's doing even more than just rehabbing. That's my understanding. the lakefront property you're speaking of in specific yes he owns he purchased all of this property together and of course the five existing buildings are being under rehab right now he is about finished with the demolition of what i knew as two lakes apartments when i was in college here they just were not in a structurally sound condition to rehab. So he's gone ahead and tore those down just to clean up the site and to manage it and take care of it. The five buildings that he kept are well-constructed concrete slab floors, and he just loves them. They're bigger than he could have done as new construction. the footprint of the individual units, and they're one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, so he's really happy with what he has there and what to work with. Good bones in the buildings. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Thank you very much. Yes, Ms. Beatty. I would just like to comment and say there are several other large apartment complex areas in Lexington that could aesthetically need, could use some of this as well, But really nice, really nice. I like that. Thank you. I'm sorry I kept you all in and your neighbors here until this time. But like I said, I think it's important. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll definitely close this part of the hearing and open it up for other discussions or a motion. Mr. Chair, if you're ready for a motion, I move approval of DP 2011-78, Lakeview Estates, Unit 2, Block J, Lot 7, Block K, Lot 2, 2E, and 3 amended. Thank you. With the 13 recommendations, conditions that the staff recommends. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. I believe Ms. Beatty did second that as well. If there's no further discussion, we'll vote. and once again we may have to have a show of hands as well okay thank you motion passes thank you Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. Good afternoon. The last item on your agenda today is at the bottom of page 5, item F. It is DP 2011-79 Coldstream Research Campus, lots 7 and 8. This is an amended, or I'm sorry, a preliminary subdivision plan as well as a final development plan. the property is located off of Newtown Pike and I 75 off of Aristides from Newtown Pike this is the Embassy Suites this is McGrathiana these this building that is right here that has an approved development plan and there's another building that is approved but not yet built for this side of the lot The lot for this development plan is this lot right here. It is a 128,000 square foot, four-story professional office building. The property is zoned P2. The applicant is proposing an access off of that adjacent two-building lot that I showed you over here. They have a very wide, full-blown access point right here that is almost the same cross-section as McGrathiana. This is a private access for these two buildings. They are proposing an access into the property off of that. The applicant has submitted a minor amended development plan for these two lots to add that access point. That is something that will have to be certified prior to the certification of this development plan. The applicant is also indicating a proposed cul-de-sac on this side of the property. The property line comes down right here. The proposed public street is entirely on lot number 7. So this portion of the property is a preliminary subdivision plan. Approval of this plan would allow them to start construction on this street, and a final record plat would come later to dedicate that public street. This portion of the property is a final development plan and would allow them to begin construction independent of the public street. They have frontage. They would have access approved via the development plan. This is something that could be done concurrently. No development of lot 7 would come until a final development plan is approved for this lot. The subdivision committee. Chris, hold on one second. I'm sorry. That's okay. I'm sorry, Chris. That's okay. I'm confused. Okay. There is, can you show us on the overhead where this building, this development is proposed and where that cul-de-sac is proposed? Yes. Lot number eight, which is the lot that the building is on, is right here adjacent to these developed lots with the hole for the proposed building that's not constructed. Where is the MedTech College? I'm not sure of that by name. Is it one of the? Okay. Okay, it's, I guess, this arched building right here. It is, okay. The proposed cul-de-sac would be on this lot line that is currently shown right here. Okay, thank you. Okay, sorry about that. The subdivision committee recommended approval at its last meeting. The applicant, as well as divisions of engineering and divisions of water quality and representatives from Coldstream met with us earlier this week to discuss one of the outstanding conditions. The first one remaining after the sign-off conditions is condition number nine, that is to resolve the stormwater detention information on this plan. There is a series of old notes that date back to the original 1991 zone change for the Coldstream Research Campus. and every so often, the last time being in 2007, those notes were streamlined, revised, brought up to date. With it being 2011 and new staff, new divisions like water quality having come on board since that time, the staff wanted to sit down and go over those notes again and further refine those. The notes that you see on the overhead are proposed notes that the staff, as well as the other divisions I mentioned, are now finalizing. This is very close to the end product of those revisions. The reason that this item is still maintained on your recommendation as a resolve item is that they are still being reviewed by Water Quality and Engineering. Those divisions are also sign-offs. However, staff didn't feel that it was the proper time to remove those conditions, seeing as how they haven't been finalized yet. So basically, this condition is covered through two sign-offs as well as through the resolve condition for the stormwater notes number nine. Condition number 10 manifested itself out of a discussion item regarding proposed parking on the site. The applicant does have a required generator based on the P2 requirement of 276 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing their parking in two phases, a total of 559 spaces between the two phases. Phase 1 parking would be 349 spaces, with an additional 210 to be constructed at a later time. There was discussion at the subdivision committee and concern about when the applicant might come back to construct those Phase II parking spaces, wanting to be able to make sure that that construction and that parking facility are done up to current standards at whichever time they were to come back in. Again, the staff understood those concerns, and we had proposed a condition number 10 to say at the time the proposed parking for the future phase is constructed, it will comply with all applicable laws at that time. Again, that is the staff's attempt to try to address the concerns that the subdivision committee had without necessarily the need for them to come back with a future amended development plan necessarily. Like I said, the staff did recommend approval on the revised set of conditions that was handed out to you on the blue sheet, and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Chris. Any questions at this time? If not, I'll hear from the applicant. Well, for a company that specializes in helping people sleep, I hope we can keep from that this afternoon since we're the last plant on the agenda. My name is Sarah Tuttle. I'm with Strand, and I represent Tempur-Pedic, the Nyer company. I've got Jim Hodge here with white hair and combs, and Jerry Tepe with Nyer. They are the design builders for this property. Also, the University of Kentucky is going to actually be building the proposed street that is on Lot 7, and so I'm representing them as well, although they're not here. Just a minute or two to talk about Tempur-Pedic. They are a hometown company by way of NASA. The technology was developed by NASA and then perfected by some folks in Sweden. The company was established in 1993. Right now it employs about 300 people locally, executives, management personnel, staff. They hope to add 65 more career management level positions over the next few years. The manufacturing takes place in Virginia, New Mexico, and Denmark. Mattresses are sold in 80 countries. This is their world headquarters, and they want to stay in Lexington because they like the visual quality and the open space of the Coldstream Research Campus, along with easy access to the interstate and the airports. As Chris Taylor said, it's 128,000 square feet and four floors. This will be an employee-friendly facility with dining areas, outdoor patios, fitness and yoga facilities. It is office space. There is no manufacturing. Their R&D takes place in Virginia. We understand the concern about the parking. Coldstream has a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per thousand. When the P2 zone was created, there was the understanding that there would be manufacturing. There was a potential for laboratory space that do not require the parking ratio that typical office uses require. The P1 zone requires, instead of 2.5 spaces per thousand, the P1 zone requires 5 spaces per thousand. The proposal for this first phase is 3.12 spaces per thousand. And eventually, if the additional parking is necessary, it will get up to that five spaces per thousand if there is the need. But to try to be environmentally friendly, we are proposing to build 349 now and then add the others later. So what you see here is this whole section that's in blue will remain unconstructed for now, as well as these yard areas here. And that was a request of the Coldstream Design Review Committee that we leave open space in the parking lots rather than around the perimeter to a certain degree. We have taken this to the Coldstream Design Review Committee and have gotten approval. Coldstream as a whole has a requirement for the development plans that exist of 1,630 spaces, and there are 2,383 spaces, and that is 146 percent of the minimum requirement. For our 349 spaces, we are requesting 128 percent of what's required at this first phase. We've worked hard with the staff. The notes that are on the, what's his name? Elmo. The notes that are on Elmo have evolved over a long time. They were written in 1991 and were outdated, and they've become a mishmash over the years. and this is a long-needed reconciliation of what was the true intent. And we had a very productive meeting on Tuesday, and we're just waiting for final tweaking to come out of that. We've had multiple meetings with the staff from the beginning. This is kind of complicated because Coldstream is building the road. We need to be able to get out and get this development plan certified so that we can get started. Tempur-Pedic has to be out by January of 2013. That's 15 months to build an $18 million building. So they've been very cooperative, and we appreciate that very much and ask for your approval. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions. Any questions from the Commission? No? Okay. Anyone else that wants to speak in regards to this? Nope. Okay. If there's no questions, we'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motion. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Copeland. It's nice that Tempur-Pedic's staying with us, And I want to extend the hospitality, but I have reservations about all of this parking. As it stands now, we're giving you so much permission, as it's written, to build one and a half times as much parking as required and then go to almost doubling the parking with a voucher. Now, we have the disclaimer here, at the time parking proposed for future phase is constructed, it will comply with all applicable laws. What about reciprocity parking? You're first on the ranch out there, but there will be reciprocity parking. I talked with, or there could be, at which time your need would be less. I talked with Transportation, and they see the citation area as a hub for park and ride. If we need you to provide park and ride, it's usually my understanding that it's something you would grant to us, but it would be outside of laws. So I would like to see that last line changed so it will comply with all applicable laws and common practice. Not necessarily that it's lawful. Now, Ms. Tuttle, do you have any comments? Well, you just sprang it on me. And so I would probably state that I feel that's pretty safe because right now common practice is to drive to work in your own car. I think that given the looseness of the phrase common practice and also ethical laws, which is pretty loose as well, what we're asking is to, if we need it, and we would be the ones most likely to know whether we needed it, that we would be given the permission to do that. and anything that we would be building would be subject to laws. And the only thing we were trying to think of, well, what would be an applicable law? And that would be if, in fact, there were parking maximums. There are no parking maximums in any of the zones except for mixed use, I believe. And so there would have to be a parking maximum employed, and at that time that would be a text amendment, and we would have the option of building it before a maximum was employed or accepting that at whatever level. Typically, and the staff will, Bill sits over there, Bill knows that I have been an advocate for parking maximums for a long time. But given the situation at Coldstream where the requirement is so low, I would think that we would be well covered by any maximum that would be reconsidered. Remember, Coldstream was intended to provide manufacturing, which has a very low parking requirement, to provide labs, which has an incredibly low parking requirement. The uses that are out there are not necessarily much in sync with that, and they have considerably more parking than the minimums now. We are right within the, I've got the statistics here, we're right below what is required, or what is at Coldstream right now. For example, the Coldstream Center, which is the old Hughes Building, and that does have labs in it, is required to have 150 spaces. We have 299. Embassy Suites, which is a different animal, is required to have 233 spaces. They have 430. The X-Stream building, which is the Hewlett-Packard, was required to have 150. They have 270. IBM was required to have 113. They have 260. That's because the people that were developing these office buildings recognized that the P2 zone is not adequate. And there are no maximums. Yes, I understand that. But at the same time, to get an active bus route, you have to have 25 people riding it. And if everybody takes that approach, there is no incentive to develop park and ride or mass transportation serving that area, which would be a benefit to your employees, even if they are upper-level managers. So if we set precedent on this, and you're sort of the pioneers out there, if we set precedent on this lot, then we've got to do it for everybody else. And I'm not willing to agree to that unless the Planning Commission dictates it. Okay. Mr. Owens. Mr. Hodge, member of the Commission. I'm Jim Hodge. I was hoping that I could simply meekly sit back and not say anything this afternoon. But let me try to explain a couple things and also give you a little background, maybe about Tempur-Pedic, maybe about me. First of all, I'm a walking advertisement for Tempur-Pedic. back in the 1970s, I spent on two separate occasions a week lying in the floor of my den because I couldn't do anything else. And it took me about 45 minutes to get out of bed each morning, and that was very painful. And while this is not terribly pertinent to the legal issues, it does give you some idea why I enthusiastically represent this client. I was treated by various and sundry folks at one of the leading medical establishments here in Lexington. And fortunately, due to those folks, I avoided back surgery. But in the process of this, they'd give me a lot of drugs, and I'd typically pass out before the pain would go away. and so uh and the little girls from the office who had only seen me in a three-piece suit would bring work out to the house and would come in and shriek in horror when i was lying on the floor in sweatpants and like we went out to the healthy back store dd and i did one day and started looking at these products and and back then in our minds they were kind of pricey uh and so we thought about it. In fact, a friend of mine, a childhood friend of mine worked in the store. And so we started walking. We walked out of the store and I said to Dee Dee, I said, you know, we ought to talk to Butch Ellenson about this. And Butch was the doctor, the orthopedic surgeon who prevented me from having back surgery. And so we're walking down the front of the mall there heading towards Joseph Beth. And we walked in and lo and behold, Butch Ellenson was sitting on one of the benches out there in front of the bookstore. And I said, you know, I told him what the situation is. I said, what do you think about these mattresses? You got any idea about those? And he said, yeah, Jim says, I got hip problems. I sleep on one of them, and they're wonderful. And so we turned around, went back, and bought one. I've slept on it ever since. And as long as I do a little stretching and I sleep on that mattress and I buy a car with the right kind of lumbar sport, I don't have any back problems. Now, as a separate aside, since I've alluded to Dee Dee in this story, I just mentioned this morning, I said, and don't take this wrong because I agree with exactly what you're saying and what you're trying to accomplish, but I asked the former commissioner of law this morning, I said, you know, do you remember anybody ever being concerned about a developer having too much off-street parking? And she looked at me and she said, no, not in my career. Let's talk about the specifics of this development. What we've got here is we've got a zone developed for a specific piece of property. But if you look at the zoning ordinance, subsumed within the P1 zone are virtually all of the requirements of the P2 zone, rather, or all the P1 requirements. Basically. I mean, the accessory uses in the P1 zone are permitted in the P1 zone. Basically, all the primary uses are permitted. And this development is really a P1 development based on the use. And the parking for P1 is much more aligned than P2. P2 envisioned originally totally different uses the way that it's evolved. I mean, it was going to be labs and things which were low-people buildings. As some of you will recall, we managed to defeat some zoning kind of down the road from here. and part of the discussion that the developer then used, who I was wearing the other side then, part of the argument the developer used to try to develop some nice horse farms was that Coldstream wasn't going. Coldstream had been sitting out there for years, and it wouldn't go. and therefore there was no demand in Fayette County for the kind of zoning that had been placed on this farmland, which was ED, as I recall, Mr. Owens. And we convinced the commission and the council to not turn this ED area into residential because there were only two ED areas in all of Fayette County. And one was a subject property and one was over on the other side of Hamburg, out where Central Baptist talked about going anyway. Now, my point is, though, developers who are wanting to create sprawl and put houses where other people don't want houses have used the, quote, failure of Coldstream as an argument. and we should not allow that to be permitted. What we have here is the beginning of the success, I think, of Coldstream. And, of course, the university and the Commonwealth of Kentucky hopes that this project succeeds and they hope that we're not planning this project just for the existing 300 employees. We're planning for growth, and the urban county government and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, with their involvement in this, want to see growth here. And if you look at the requested parking in line with typical commercial developments, the requested parking is very conservative. But the technical point I wanted to make, and I asked Bill about this before the hearing, The way maximum parking is controlled in this zone is through one thing. There's no maximum parking requirement. There's a minimum parking requirement. But the way it's controlled is the open space requirement. And it's a very, very stringent open space requirement. It has to be over 50% of the lot has to be open space. And we meet that requirement. So I think, as a practical matter, there's no basis to disprove this plat based upon there being too much parking. But separate and apart from the legalities, we would hope that you all would support this project for the good things it's doing for Coldstream and the city in general. And I think we would support what you're asking for. In fact, I was in a meeting yesterday, and I go to a meeting out there once a week now, and they talk about all the internal design, everything that needs to be done for the employees, everything that needs to be done for the customers. And I think that they would welcome the ability for their employees to have buses to take them out there. But we have to plan for growth. We hope we have growth. I assure you we're not going to build those parking spaces unless we absolutely need them. I mean, Jerry can probably tell you, I'm not sure, but building parking is not cheap. And we don't want to build those parking spaces unless we have to. But we sure don't want to put the tremendous amount of money that I know that's going to go into this development in there and then grow and for some reason then not have adequate parking. You don't want cars out on McGrathian Parkway or else. Now, there is no reciprocal parking out there. and due to the way Coldstream is developed and the cam charges, each property is responsible for its own internal parking and I can't see under any stretch. Plus, they're laid out far. It's like playing on a golf course where the greens are far away from one another. Coldstream is sort of like the bull over in Madison County. You can't walk from one green to the other over in the bull because they're so far apart. The same thing would be true for parking here. So I can assure you that for technical reasons and practical reasons, there won't be any reciprocal parking. But we would love to have buses coming out here. I mean, the employee representatives in these meetings I go to each week have talked about that. They've also talked about how slow the traffic signal is at the main intersection out there and the fact that people go up and down the road on which Mr. Owens lives lickety-split, but it takes a long time to get out there. And someday they may be down here talking to the council about trying to resolve that issue. But, I mean, this is a fantastic company. This is a crown piece of land in Fayette County that we want to develop in accordance with the plan for many reasons, not just the park. And I want to keep them here for personal reasons. So I would hope you would support this, and we'll do everything we can to facilitate mass transit buses, and we'll only build the parking that we need to build. Thank you, Mr. Hodge. Here I was chairing my first meeting, and I thought we were doing good. You didn't expect to have to deal with me. About an hour and 40 minutes went into it, and then I just totally lost it. We did actually close this discussion, yes. I was going to let Ms. Blanton speak first, and she asked to a moment ago. So please go ahead, and I'll get to Chris. I'll just make it quick, but I'm not in support of adding any additional restrictions. I think there have been enough problems developing Coldstream as it is. I think this is a good plan, a good employer in town that we want to keep, and I would just be in favor of voting on this as is. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mr. King. Just very quickly, I was going to echo some of what was said. When the Office Industry and Research Park concept, that mixed-use Industrial Park Employment Center, was first introduced in the 1988 comprehensive plan, I ended up subsequently being tasked with writing the ordinance that eventually became the P2. So I was very much involved in every decision because I drafted the ordinance, and I would echo what has been said. It was a very conscious decision on our part to set the parking very low because of the wide range of uses being proposed, the fact that we knew we would be having large buildings in a campus setting, and that some of those may be very densely packed with employees and others may be very sparsely packed with employees. So we didn't want to mandate an overabundance of parking. So we assumed a very low minimum requirement and then assumed that, again, for the most part, people would not be paying to build more than they typically would need, and that decision was best left to the businesses that would occupy those buildings. And with that said, too, likewise, with the very high open space requirement, we knew there would always be that campus atmosphere and we would have copious amounts of open space. Thank you. And I think what Mr. King just said at the very end as far as the overall open space of the whole development plan, that's a key here. You start thinking about 540-some-odd parking spaces. It sounds like a lot, but I'm sure with stormwater fees in place and so forth, they'll only build it and pay for it if they need to. Other questions? Discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move that we accept DP 2011-79 Coldstream Research Campus, Lots 7 and 8, with the ten conditions as recommended by staff. Motion has been made by Ms. Beatty and seconded by Patrick Brewer. If there's no further discussion, I'll ask for a vote that's on the screen if necessary. We may have to raise hands again. Motion passes. Thank you. We do have another item, which would be the performance bonds and letter of credit that we need to consider at this time. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the release and call of bonds dated September 11, 2011. Thank you. Motion's been made. Ms. Phillips, is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, please vote. Hands work. Motion passes. Other Commission items from the Commission? Staff items? Just to only remind the Commission that a week from today we will be having a work session on the goals and objectives, and we are preparing materials for you that we will send out to you in advance that we think will help facilitate that discussion. We look forward to that next week. I don't think so. Any other discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Second. Motion is made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Yep. We got it. Thank you. Motion to adjourn is made. Thank you.