කරන්න, පානය විස්තියි කරන්න, කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය විස්තියි අවශ්‍ය විස්තියි හොඳින් කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය විස්තියි අපි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය විස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය විස්තියි අපි ස්තියි කරන්න, ස්තියි අපි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය විස්තියි ස්තියි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය ස්තියි දැනර්තක ප්රදාර්ඩාර්ලින් කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය ස්තියි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය ස්තියි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය ස්තියි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය ස්තියි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය ස්තියි කරන්න, අවශ්‍ය ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි ස්තියි DP2007-100 DP2007-100 DP2007-100 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-134 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-132 DP2007-143 DP2007-140 Greetings Members, and my name is Jerry Herndon. I'd like to call your attention to Page 9, Item I. DP2007-137 Pearson Trapp Dog Harreters Association. We are in agreement with the staff and subdivision recommendations. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Herndon. We have a request for approval of DP2007-137 Pearson Trapp Dog Harreter Association, Track 1, located at 1805 through 1865 Alexandria Drive. The purpose of this amendment is to add a 1,500-square-foot building. There are 16 conditions. Subdivision committee recommended approval. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, move for approval of DP2007-137 with the conditions. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Tom Breeden. I'm with GRW Engineers. I'd like to refer you to Page 9, Item 3H, DP2007-136. We are in agreement with the requirements and request for approval. Okay. Thank you. We have a request for approval of DP2007-136 Hamburg Place Farm, Plotted Place Community Development, Lot 3, located at 1863 Plotted Place. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the parking layout and drive-through. The subdivision committee recommended approval. There were nine conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP2007-136 with nine conditions as noted. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Fred Easteridge with Sherman Carter Barnhart. On Page 4 of the agenda, Item G, Plan 2005-334F, the Doris G. Phelps Property, Unit 2, amended. I'd like to ask for approval, subject to conditions as stated. The reason for the continued discussion is we're adding two HOA lots to the plan. Thank you, Mr. Easteridge. We have a request for approval of Plan 2005-334F, Doris G. Phelps Property, Unit 2, located at 4101 Athens Boonesboro Road. There were 12 conditions, and the Subdivision Committee recommended approval subject to the previous 12 conditions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2005-334F with the 12 conditions as noted. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, on Page 5, Item I, Plan 2006-131F, the Mulliken Property, Shady Hills. We ask for reapproval of the plan subject to the conditions as stated. Thank you, sir. We have a request for reapproval of Plan 2006-131F, Mulliken Property, located at 2470 Liberty Hill Drive, subject to the previous seven conditions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for reapproval of Plan 2006-131F, subject to the seven conditions. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Jason Banks with Eagle Engineering. If you'll turn to Page 3 of your agenda, Item D, Plan 2007-222F, Woodward Lander Property, Unit 1A, Lot 108, Section 1. We're in agreement with staff's conditions and would request approval. Thank you, Mr. Banks. We have a request for approval of Plan 2007-222F, Woodward Lander Property, Unit 1A, Lot 108, Section 1, located at 3180 Sandersville Road. Subdivision Committee recommended approval, subject to eight conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. The Chair will move for approval of Plan 2007-222F with conditions. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if you'll turn to Page 10 of your agenda, Item N, DP-2006-70, Kirk Levington North. This is a reapproval item and we're in agreement with staff's condition and would request reapproval. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Banks. We have a request for reapproval of DP-2006-70, Kirk Levington North, located at 857 and 858 Malibu Drive, subject to the previous four conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP-2006-70 with the four conditions as noted. Reapprove, rather. Second. We have a motion and a second for reapproval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. On Page 2, Item C, this is Plan 2007-223P, Bluegrass Business Park. We are in agreement with the 15 conditions and request approval. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. We have a request for approval of Plan 2007-223P, Bluegrass Business Park, located at 2540 Spur Road. The purpose of this amendment is to subdivide one lot into six and create an access easement. The Subdivision Committee recommended approval subject to 15 conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2007-223P with the 15 conditions as noted. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. On Page 3 is the final record plat that corresponds with this. It's Item C, Plan 2007-221F, Bluegrass Business Park, and I believe we're in agreement with 1 through 10. I believe staff's got revisions on 11 and 12. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, the applicant has submitted a revised plan that does address our concerns outlined in 11 and 12, and with that revision, we believe it is an approvable plan and you may delete 11 and 12. We are, of course, prepared to make a presentation on the plan should you wish to see it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is there anyone in commission that would like to see this particular plan? Okay. We request for approval of Plan 2007-221F, Bluegrass Business Park, located at 2540 Spur Road. The purpose of this amendment is to subdivide one lot into three lots and add an access easement. There was a referral recommendation by the subdivision committee, but it appears the applicant has submitted a revised plan. Mr. Chairman, I would add with their revision that it's a subdivision into two lots and not three. I'm sorry. It was that third lot that was the subject of our concern. And we removed the access easement as well from that sentence. Okay. All right. Thank you for the clarification. Subdivision of two lots into three and then removal of the access easement. And the 12 conditions, 11 and 12, were deleted as a result of that revised plan. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2007-221F with the 10 conditions leading number 11 and number 12. Based on the revised plan. Based on the revised plan provided to staff. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. The item just above that is Plan 2007-220F, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4. We are in agreement with the 11 conditions and request approval. Okay. Thank you. We have a request for approval of Plan 2007-220F, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4, located at 3050 Beaumont Center Circle. Subdivision committee recommended approval subject to the 11 conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2007-220F, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 4. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. At the bottom of that page is Plan 2007-224F, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 5. It continues on the next page, and we are in agreement with the nine conditions and request approval. Thank you, sir. We have a request for approval of Plan 2007-224F, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 5, located at 3050 Beaumont Center Circle. There are a total of – the subdivision committee recommended approval. There are a total of nine conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2007-224F with the nine conditions that's noted. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. On the top of page 4, Item F, Plan 2007-203F, the Mahan Property, Lot 1. We're back on a re-discussion. On the previous approved note, we were hoping to have the words and the clubhouse removed from there, and with that, it would be acceptable, these conditions and request approval. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. I would note Mr. Mahan's recusal. Mr. Martin, do you have anything you want to add to this? Okay. We have a request for approval of Plan 2007-203F, Mahan Property, Lot 1, located at 2940 Manowar Boulevard. There are a total of 12 conditions. The subdivision committee recommended approval, and deleting the clubhouse as being included in the buildings prior to the dedicating of Bradford Colony cul-de-sac. Yes. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain the motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move approval of Plan 2007-203F. With 12 conditions? 12 conditions. Okay. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. On page 5, items J and K are both within the Sharkey property. Would you like to do them at the same time? Sure, we can do that. Okay. As we plan 2005-196F and 2005-197F, we are requesting reapproval of both plans subject to the conditions. Okay. We have a request for approval of two plans, Plan 2005-196F, Sharkey Property Unit 2B, located at 1700 Leestown Road, and a request for approval of Plan 2005-197F, Sharkey Property Unit 2C, located at the same address, 1700 Leestown Road. The first plan, Plan 196F, had seven conditions, requests for reapproval, and the second plan also had seven conditions, requests for reapproval. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion for both plans. Mr. Chairman, I move for reapproval of Plan 2005-196F with seven conditions and Plan 2005-197F with seven conditions as noted on the agenda. Second. We have a motion and second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. I got some more. Oh. Top of page six. This is Plan 2006-240F, New Market, Phase 1, Unit E. We are seeking reapproval subject to the six conditions. Okay. We have a request for Plan 2006-240F, New Market, Phase 1, Unit 1E, located at 1201 Deerhaven Lane. This is a request for reapproval subject to the previous six conditions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2006-240F with the six conditions as noted. Second. We have a motion and second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. On page eight. Item F, DP-2007-133, Greendale Hills. We're in agreement to the 12 conditions and request approval. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kaler. We have a request for approval of DP-2007-133, Greendale Hills, located at 865 Greendale Road. Subject to the 12 conditions, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, could the staff please explain Number 12 to us, discuss the extent of pavement to the compound? Yes, ma'am, and that was a discussion item during the review. It is our understanding that only a portion of that existing driveway is paved, and during the staff review it was our consensus that it should be paved all the way to the compound. We are prepared to present that to you if you would like to see it. Would you like to see that? I'd like to see that plan. Okay. We'll hear that application. Okay. On to Page 10. Yes, sir. Top of Page 10, DP-2007-142, Watts Farm, Track 4, Lot 2, amended. We are in agreement with the six conditions and request approval. Okay. I would note that staff has provided Commission members a memorandum at their position dated November 7th, has a pictorial view of this particular application. We have a request for approval of DP-2007-142, Watts Farm, Track 4, Lot 2, located at 441 Redding Road. The purpose of this amendment is to add a 213-square-foot addition and canopy over the new gas pumps. The subdivision committee recommended approval. There were six conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, Commission, do you have any questions or comments with regards to the memo? Chair, we'll entertain a motion. Or do you want to see this application presented? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP-2007-142. Do we need to do anything with the staff memorandum? I believe the memorandum was probably just for informational purposes. Okay. So subject to the six conditions. Okay. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. And the next item on your agenda is DP-2007-143. This is South Hill Crossing Center Court Phase 2. We are in agreement with Conditions 1 through 9, and I'd ask that we be able to waive the review by technical committee. This is the Phase 2. It's essentially what we've been showing since the zone change, and we are trying to move quickly to get a grading permit before the weather changes. And with the holidays this month, that TRC meeting would add an extra week to our schedules. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Can we see this one? Yes, we'd like to. Mr. Chairman, because this is a high visibility project downtown and exemplifies our infill program, I think that it's prudent for us to see the plan. Okay. We will hear a presentation on that plan. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any additional sounded items? Do we have any from staff? Any sounded items? Mr. Chairman, there is on page 6 of your agenda under Development Plans, ZDP 2007-81, that staff does believe could be sounded. However, no one is here to represent the applicant to request it be sounded. It was a zoning development plan that was approved by the subdivision committee. The zone change was subsequently denied. It went to council, was approved. So the plan is now back on your agenda, and it does have a subdivision committee recommendation of approval. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. This particular plan came back to us as a result of council approval of the zone change. It's ZDP 2007-81, Valley Heights, subdivision unit 3D, located at 1388 Alexandria Drive. There were 11 conditions. The subdivision committee recommended approval. Is there anyone in the commission who would like to see this particular plan? Okay. I'm sorry. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this particular plan? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2007-81 subject to the 11 conditions. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I guess we'll have a presentation for staff. The first plan will be on page 2. Is that correct? We'll take a moment until staff is set up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I needed to show you more information on page 2 of your agenda. Plan 2007-175P, Tuscany Unit 3, is the plan that you see on your left on the board. And if you turn to page 7 of your agenda, you will see Tuscany Unit 6. These units are side-by-side and they are connected by these revisions and by this plan. And I think it's necessary for your understanding of the recommendations in the review of this plan and how they'll work that you see them together and consider them together. I can hear myself. Thank you. Thank you. Here we go. I thought I did. Okay. Thank you very much. Again, here we are at Section 3 of Tuscany. Here we have Old Rosebud, the collector. Here is where Ogden Way ties in from the adjoining development with Villa Medici Pass, the road system coming through here. It is a single-family development, approximately 47 acres with 149 lots. Why I wanted you to see this together is that in this area is our Unit 6. And here we have Unit 6. And you can see, once again, here's Villa Medici Pass. Here is Old Rosebud as it continues. Here's Ogden. Here is 3 right through here, as you can see here. 6 is sitting right there. During the review, and again, I will tell you, this is 41 acres with 168 fourplex buildings with 504 bedrooms. You can see the layout with the circular access, the driveways, the buildings. When we reviewed this plan initially, you may recall that we recommended disapproval, and you can see that on your agenda. Our primary problem with this plan was very simple. We didn't have Rosebud, which is a collector, and identified as such in our comprehensive plan. Since that time, they revised their plan. You can see we have Old Rosebud. They shifted Unit 6 upward, and that is the reason I wanted you to see this together, because when they shifted it upward, it adjusted the circulation pattern slightly and changed Unit 3, and that we've had a reduction of lots in Unit 3. This will help, I hope, provide a big picture of that, and you can see, again, how that relationship will work. Here we have Tuscany and the entire development. Somerfield, here is the Lowe's and that commercial development with Sir Barton Way. This is the current approved street system and layout in this area. With these two submittals, this is the current layout in 3 and 6. We have Rosebud here. We have Villa Medici here. What has happened is this yellow street, this is all Unit 6, these yellow streets. By shifting Unit 6 up to here, this now becomes the connection into this Harpers Point future development. Again, let me... Here is that connection that I've shown in yellow. Because this is now all Unit 6, this street with the cul-de-sac will now come through, and that is what we've attempted to show you with this. Again, old Rosebud, Medici. This now becomes the connection, and all this is now Unit 6. Again, you can see Cresta Pass, that's the frontage, Villa Medici Pass, and old Rosebud. Here is where we'll have the fine ebony connection. Again, Ogden Way ties in right here. Okay. Again, Unit 6, what happened is that it expanded over to the Greenway and expanded up right here to Cresta Pass. That, in effect, those are the material changes on these plans. On Unit 3, the subdivision committee did recommend referral, and again, those reasons for referral were the street connections and the boundary of the plans. And that is why 3 is connected exactly to Unit 6, because Unit 6, should you approve Unit 6 in its current form, that will change Unit 3. The plan, should it be approved, has eight standard, or actually seven standard conditions, with number 8 being revised, the plan to meet the previous boundaries. Again, if you approve Unit 6, number 8 will no longer be necessary as part of the approval for Unit 3. If you turn to page 7 on your agenda, Tuscany Unit 6, as I stated before, the subdivision committee had recommended postponement. Staff had originally recommended disapproval of Unit 6 because of old Rosebud Collector. You have a blue sheet of paper now that was passed out. This is a revised recommendation for Unit 6. The staff has recommended approval subject to eight or seven standard conditions. The others are fairly standard but bear some explanation, and that is 8 is to adjust the building setbacks in compliance and the building envelopes in compliance with Unit 9. This is a group residential project, and within this development, there are required setbacks. There are some areas where there are some slight conflicts with those required setbacks, and so we're asking that they clearly rectify that situation by adjusting the appropriate setbacks. It is in relationship to the internal access. We also believe because of now public streets that will be constructed from this plan, that it be amended, the title, to include preliminary subdivision along with final development plan in the title. We also wish to resolve the timing of the construction and dedication of old Rosebud. Again, we wish that to be taken care of prior to the certification of this plan because we believe this is a vital connection as a collector, and it is absolutely necessary that we have that resolved, and we understand how we're going to have that constructed and dedicated to the city prior to certification of this plan. 11 and 12 are very standard. Number 11 is reduce the building envelope. That, again, is in conjunction with Unit 9, I mean Chapter 9 requirements. They have a building envelope, and they're showing it as 220 feet. That's too large. It kicks them into a whole other category of review and classification, and it would also create conflicts with the setbacks, so we're asking them to clean that up. Then there are two, delete note number 10 from the new submission, which is a note that is not one that is kind of an awkward note, and it's one that we believe needs to be deleted from the plan. It makes reference to guest parking, and it's not necessary to the plan. But, again, I wanted you to see the relationship of these two units and how they would work together, and I hope that the picture of the overall circulation helps demonstrate that for you. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Yes, Mr. Penn. Tom, help me understand, because I've seen what you've put together there. What was the subdivision committee's reason for postponement? Yes, sir. They originally recommended postponement because we had not received a revised plan that addressed some access concerns. So after receiving the revised plan, the staff is comfortable with the revised plan. Yes, sir. That is why we revised our recommendations. Ms. Phillips. I have a couple of questions. First off, in this section, and I don't sit on the subdivision committee, so I'm unaware of those kinds of issues, but where is stormwater going to drain to in this section? It doesn't seem that there's any kind of detention. And also, with the modification of the alignment of Cresta Pass, it appears that you're going to have potentially a wetlands issue as it's going through a greenway that looks like it might have a stream running through it. Did the subdivision committee address those issues? No, ma'am, not directly. I do believe that engineering, perhaps the applicant could address those issues better than I could. Again, those types of issues will have to be addressed during the process and the improvement plan process. This is a development plan. Did they get addressed now? When do we consider those issues? As a sign-off condition, it certainly could be addressed through this. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any additional questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, I have a question on the agenda. You have it noted here on Unit 6 that there was some question of compliance with the bar code. Yes, ma'am, and that was one of the original reasons, and let me show you. That hasn't been addressed yet. When the original submission came in with this access easement, it is in its approximate form. It hasn't changed. There was concern with these driveways, which are access easements, but their driveways, their width was inadequate for our emergency vehicles. That was the number one issue. The secondary issue was they had an access point here, and they had one here. They were too close together, and that interfered with the proper response, again, of emergency vehicles entering the property and depending on the direction they needed to go. The plan was revised once where they kept this, and they brought one up here, and that worked better, but it was not preferable. And so on a subsequent submittal and final submittal that you see before you, they've provided an access point here off Old Rosebud, off the collector, which is, according to the information we have from the fire department, much preferable to the one up here. The critical issue now is the timing of Old Rosebud. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Petitioner. Al Groh, CA Partners. Ms. Phillips, you had a couple of questions. I was able to hear one of them and was not able to follow the second one. Retention for this development will be provided off-site. There's a large detention basin just upstream of Sir Barton. There's a fairly substantial stream that traverses through this property. Greenway, open space, that entire area is stormwater management, retention, water quality, and that will be the primary server of this development. Now, your second question, did you mind repeating that? I was wondering about since Cresta Pass had been realigned, I wondered if there were going to be wetlands crossing issues, issues associated with crossing that greenway. Cresta, yes. Cresta Pass was always predicted to cross that stream and to serve a little island of development that sits just on the west side of that harbors point. That's the piece it's going to serve. So it was always going to cross. And there is a wetland crossing. There is a significant stream crossing. There will be a significant expense with a fairly substantial structure there as well. My question refers to permitting. Has the applicant already gone through the process of delineating and seeking application for wetland certification? Has not gone through it completely, but is in the process of seeking it, has not heard back from – I think we've heard back from the Division of Water, but not the Corps. And that permit has probably been in the works for 12 months. I don't know if we should be approving it until we know that those permits are in place. That's just my two cents worth. Well, that's an issue for Cresta Pass and Cresta Pass only. None of this development is in any way, shape, or form wetland sensitive. It is simply the future crossing of Cresta Pass to cross this Blue Line stream into Harper's Point. Well, Cresta Pass will get built with this section down to roughly this terminus here. And then as Harper's Point develops, the crossing will be made. We prefer not to cross the Blue Line stream. But connectivity, continuity, things of that nature, they want access to Harper's Point, this little island of land here from Tuscany as well as from – this is Liberty Road, and I cannot think of the name of the subdivision that exists between Liberty Road and future Harper's Point. Eastwood. Those same issues – I'll point this out, too, so you have the opportunity. Those same issues are attached to Old Rosebud. So is the Old Rosebud application through Water Quality and 404, it's all part and parcel of the same application? This entire area here as it relates to this crossing, this crossing, and the sanitary sewer crossing that was to be constructed with the old Unit 6, I think, is still in the hands of Division of Water – not Division of Water, but the Army Corps of Engineers. So there's no telling whether that permit will even be issued for Old Rosebud. I suspect it will be issued, but it's not in hand, so I certainly can't speak to what they may or may not do. And as the regulations change, anything is possible. But, you know, I've told members of this committee and members of the planning staff that I don't think Old Rosebud will ever get built to Liberty Road. There's four different properties that little section of street has got to cross, and it's just too big of an endeavor to expect a private individual to build it. However, this section will be built by Mr. Haymaker. I'm sorry, I was just looking at the plan. But Old Rosebud, where will it terminate there? I can't see the – yeah, right there at the end. Where does that go into in case the part that goes across the wetlands isn't developed? Well, Old Rosebud, this plan predicts or guarantees that Old Rosebud will be built to the end of Mr. Haymaker's property. Okay. And it terminates right here at the confluence of the Madden Estate. And Haymaker's property comes down like this. Madden sits in here like this. The other two properties I mentioned that lead to Liberty Road, East Lex Machine Corporation is right here, and the Schmidt property sits right here. These are two long, narrow tracks that ultimately reach Liberty Road. And this proposed collector basically splits those two tracks of land. There's development coming in from Eastwood on this side, and I think development coming in from some track on this side. You've got lots backing up to these two thin strips. So it's going to be hard to coordinate the completion of Old Rosebud. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Gross? No, we are in agreement with the conditions and would ask you to approve the plan, please. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or in opposition of this plan? Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Martin, do you have anything additional? I would just add one small clerical item. I believe it would be most appropriate if you approved Unit 6, if you so choose to do to, first because of its impact on Unit 3. You answered my question, whether we do 6 or 3 first. Okay. We have two plans that we're obviously looking at at the moment. On the blue sheet is Tuscany Unit 6 with revised conditions, staff recommended approval. Seven are your first standard, and then 8 through 12 are some other conditions. And then we also have, I believe on page 2 of our agenda, Tuscany Unit 3. And as Mr. Martin suggested, if we take 6 first, we could then delete condition 8 on Unit 3. So with that said, yes, sir, Mr. Penn? Are we still going to designate Old Rosebud as a collector street? Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Can you explain to me why this is a development plan? It's a group residential project, and they wish to pull a permit once off this plan. And we have requested that it also be amended to the preliminary subdivision because of the public street. Old Rosebud also needs to be considered. That's what I was wondering about. Okay. Any additional questions, comments? Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2007-110, Tuscany Unit 6, with the 12 conditions as noted on the revised plan and the revised staff statement on the blue. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2007-175P, Tuscany Unit 3, with the first seven conditions as noted based on the revised plan and deleting number 8. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, this takes us to our next item, page 4, I believe. Bottom of page 4. Pretty sure. Mr. Chairman, we are not sure that an item appearing on the bottom of page 2 of your agenda has been. Yes, sir. We're awake up here. We couldn't realize what we were looking at. That said, I'm not sure that this plan has representation today. I would ask if someone is here present for Plan 2007-201F, NDC property. No one's here for that plan. I might suggest you postpone it to your December meeting due to lack of representation. Okay. With that said, on the bottom of page 2, Plan 2007-201F, NDC Property Unit 1-A, Lot 16, located at 249 Ruscio Way, without representation today. We've been advised to take postponement action on this until the December meeting. December 13th, Mr. Sonley? Okay. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of Plan 2007-201F to the December 13th meeting. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page 4 of your agenda at the bottom of the page, Plan 2007-32F, Central Baptist Church Property Amended. This is a continuing discussion item on your agenda. It was brought back to you for a discussion of a requested waiver, of which you will see in the color gold has been handed out to you, discusses the waiver. Mr. Martin, do you have an extra waiver? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you once again for your patience. This plan is for the Central Baptist Church located at Nicholasville Road and Wilson Downing Road. Nicholasville, Wilson Downing, Vanderbilt Drive, terminates as a cul-de-sac in the rear of the property. It's a little over eight acres. With the church located here, they have access up through here into their parking lot. You may recall we just recently granted them, you just recently granted them, a waiver on the sidewalk location around the Vanderbilt cul-de-sac. It was located directly behind the curb, and that was because of the detention basin in this area. They have now brought this plan back to you for your consideration of the waiver request. The applicant is requesting a waiver to not build the sidewalk, which is on the approved cross-section on the Wilson Downing frontage, which you can see there in the picture that we put up on Elmo. You can see where that runs. And I'm going to point out on the plan here as well, in this area right here is where the cross-section applies and where a four-foot sidewalk. I believe you may notice in your agenda it says six feet. The cross-section actually in your waiver report is correct. That is a four-foot sidewalk on this cross-section. The sidewalk would connect to the Nicholasville Road sidewalk, would continue down. There is a gap at the driveway. You can see there we're approximately 70 feet. It would then terminate at the end of their property. It's approximately 527 feet of frontage in that location. The applicant has requested the waiver for two reasons. They've stated that there are plans to reconstruct Wilson Downing Road. And as your waiver report states, staff is aware that there have been plans for years, 20 years at least, to reconstruct Wilson Downing. At present, those plans are not in design phase. There's no funding allocated. There is no sure time frame if those may happen. Their second point for requesting the waiver is that the sidewalk terminates. It doesn't go anywhere as it goes down Wilson Downing. And they're expressing a concern about putting pedestrians out into that area. And staff understands that, yes, there are vehicular or the potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts along Wilson Downing Road. However, we also believe that it would be much safer for those pedestrians if along this frontage sidewalk was provided, that it will reduce the possibility for conflicts. And that is a good thing. We have a second picture, if you'd place it up there now, please. That shows the lotting pattern. If you start with the church and you continue down Wilson Downing towards Dartmouth, those lots through there are very large. They have the potential, the majority of those lots currently have the potential to be subdivided under the current R1C zoning. And although, as stated in your report, there are no such plans currently before us, we're seeing more of those, as you are aware, those types of infill projects. And so it is very possible that we would see a subdivision of those lots and new homes built. If that should happen, they, of course, would have to build a sidewalk which would help add connections, which would do nothing more than contribute to the safety that this sidewalk will also contribute to. So staff is recommending disapproval of this waiver for the reasons stated in your report. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Mark, what size are those lots on to the east? Were they developed when there were septic tanks? Were they developed when septic tanks were required? Well, honestly, I think 59 and 60 in that area, I'm not sure. They are on sewer now. They are large. They're quite large. Altogether, there's over 1,400 feet of frontage along there and 200 and some thousand square feet. I did a quick and dirty calculation that if you control that entire frontage, you may get as many as 20 lots in that area. Now, that's probably unlikely, but you could certainly subdivide about seven of those lots in half right now on to the R1C. So, I mean, the potential is there, and we never know, as you all are aware, if we'll see it or not. But, again, if it should happen, then they, of course, would have to build a sidewalk. The present zoning along there is what? R1C. R1C? Yes, sir. Six thousand square feet, 60 feet of frontage are the lot standards. And the average frontage of the present lots are what? When I looked, the first ones, as you proceed past the hospital, are all in excess of an acre. They have 190 feet of frontage. It only, as you get close to Dartmouth, the frontage gets reduced to the neighborhood of about 120. The depth gets reduced by about 10 or 15 feet as you go further down. But, again, they're large lots. Okay. Any additional questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify, the R1C standards are 8,006. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Petitioner. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Fred Easters with Sherman Carter Barnhart. The situation that we have come into is that the Central Baptist Church has bought this piece of property after being bought out by Central Baptist Hospital, moved to this site, and had a development plan. Sherman Carter Barnhart was hired to do the site construction plans and the building for this site. Another engineer in our office was handling the site at the time, and he talked with traffic engineering and engineering. And at that time, when we were doing the construction plans, they said there was no need to build the sidewalk because of future road widening projects and other situations. We went in. We had long negotiations and talks about the turn lane for the entrance, which the church was glad to do, and we did. It helps put safety on Wilson Downing Road. We came in to get our final record plat approved and to go on and get our Vanderbilt Drive cul-de-sac dedicated to public use in that the Urban County Engineering Office required a bond on the sidewalk along Wilson Downing, which the church did post with the Division of Engineering for construction. It was not completed with the final record plat. The church posted it, and their statement is unwilling or unknowing that they had to do that. And they are, to the letter of credit, it is coming due. They do not want to repost that, and they do not have money to build the sidewalk. And what I'm asking for is to look at the situation on all sides. I know that government and my stance on all my development is sidewalk and connectivity is a major thing. The only time I'm in disagreement with it is when I'm watching the jogger and the mother push the carriage down the sidewalk, not down the sidewalk, but in the street, in my street. that happens. I agree with it, but in certain instances, in certain situations, sidewalks do not need to be continued until some major development or some major connectivity happens. You've got to understand that Wilson Downing is a rural street, and I have some pictures that I'd like to put on Elmo. I've never used it before, but I'm sure the staff will help me. I'd like to show you the situation down that street and explain to you what I'm talking about. The first picture is standing on Nicholsville Road at Wilson Downing looking to the south, and this was taking the 7th, and it was around 2.30 in the day. There's a sidewalk along Nicholsville Road. There's the church. Here's the handicap apron for Wilson Downing. Then we have a curb. Here's our curb and gutter for the turn lane. Would you do the next one, please? This is, again, standing in the same location looking north on Nicholsville Road. There's Wilson Downing here. There's a sidewalk continuing down Nicholsville Road. Now, this is standing on Nicholsville Road looking down Wilson Downing on our property. As you can see, we've done the turn lane, the main entrance in there. We've graded up the slope, the telephone poles. There's a pole there that has guy wires in the way. Next one, please. Now, this is at the entrance of the church's parking lot. This is our catch basin. There's the driveway of the house, and this is on down Wilson Downing Road. You can see there's no curb, gutter, sidewalk. There's nothing to walk on. Next one, please. This is on down. This is standing at the driveway looking down. See the pole? In that clump of grass right there, there's a drainage headwall and a drainage ditch that goes on down the street. Next one. Right here is the drainage headwall. See the ditch and the sharp bank right here? This is a ditch line right in there. It goes down. Again, there's a drop-off over here in trees. It's a totally rural section. This is standing down below the headwall looking back towards Nicholsville Road. There's a telephone pole. There's a clump of trees, the slope, the ditch line, and the rural section of Wilson Downing. There's the headwall that's built and the telephone pole just showing what was there. What I'm showing you is that inviting people to walk down Wilson Downing and go to the end of our project, you're stranding them. They have nowhere to go except walk into the street. When I was there, I walked up in the yards and everything else did not get hit. Wilson Downing is a very high-travel road. My statement is, and the church's statement is, is adding a sidewalk along there. It's just inviting people, if they do walk down the street, to get there. Then they're stranded. They have nowhere to go. You're walking them off the end of a pier. What needs to happen is what needs to happen. Mr. Martin was very diligent in saying that the lots on down the street were large and could develop. Well, there's a better chance of the state and the city putting funds together and taking a rural section of Wilson Downing and making it an urban section and making it a safe road. Waiting for this development of these lots down the street, that is not even in the comprehension of anybody. That's the owners of the lots. To say that that could happen, a meteorite could strike the place and destroy it first. But there is plans, there is talk about widening and doing what needs to be done on Wilson Downing as a project that needs to be done to take people safely along this corridor and to keep them and just hang them out in the middle of nowhere, walk them down a sidewalk where they think they're safe and push them out in the middle of the street at a head wall and a gutter line and on the edge of a street, that's just inviting for a problem and accidents. People standing on New Circle Road look down at the situation. They can make a decision. There isn't even a goat path or a walk path or a critter path or anything along that straight road. That's what I was looking for, is that people were walking that way and there's no evidence of it. It looks like the only people who walked there in a while that didn't have any sense was me on the road. You need to think about it. Again, I am totally in agreement. You know I am on connectivity and sidewalks, but where they do good and how they function and how they transfer people like they're supposed to needs to be considered. The staff is fulfilling their requirements and their recommendations always on trying to keep the sidewalks in and keep them connected. In this situation, doing piecemeal work with the status and the capacity of Wilson Downing Road is a dangerous situation. It really needs to be looked at that way. Trying to provide a little bitty 500 feet of sidewalk that would push people out into a busy street with nowhere to go, a head wall where they'd have to walk around in the street and possibly get hit or hurt or killed is not my first choice. I would rather wait and recommend that you all wait until something can be done with the total expense of Wilson Downing Road and that improvements can be made accordingly. We have donated land for those improvements. The planning commission and the engineering staff and traffic engineering staff have made sure that we have dedicated what roadway frontage we need for possible expansions. We've put a turn lane in to aid in drivability and maneuvering. We have put extended Vanderbilt Drive with the sidewalk around it so that people that do live in that back area that can walk to church in that direction, where they probably will walk to church, can come up Vanderbilt and be safe. I've preached enough and thank you for hearing me. Thank you Mr. Easterich. Any questions for Mr. Easterich? Have you seen any plans or any preliminary plans for Milton Wilson Downing? No I have not. I've heard of them for 20 years. Well this is a situation where, you know, I can see that there will be a conversion of some of these larger lots. At one time it was half the tanks because of the size. And we've seen throughout the city that where that has happened, that those lots have been downsized and put into worthwhile development, a little more advantageous siting of how much homes and so forth, more appropriate. But in doing that, it would relate to the roadway that we've talked about. And it seems like that is a future thing that should be considered. And I think that your situation here is part of that future. And that there should be some recognition of, with the opportunity of talking with the higher departments and agreement there, or the city, in adjusting that highway, the right-of-way, so that we know where the sidewalk is going to be. And I think it would be incumbent upon your property to be placed in that relationship. So I think there needs to be some coordination here between the public improvements as well as the private improvements. And so that we don't start not doing something we should do in the future, you know, at a point where it's before us. I agree with you, Mr. Ayton. And we have done that. We have dedicated right-of-way so that there would not have to be acquisition of right-of-way for future improvements of Wilson Downing. We have done our improvements. But we have made provisions for the space for the sidewalk. But building the sidewalk at this time, I just don't see the reason and expense of it on something that, you know, a zone change in that area, well, I'm not even going to acknowledge a zone change in that area, because it would be a fight amongst everybody on that, trying to get the RR1C. But I just don't know if that happened. I think the widening of Wilson Downing would happen. It would be like the widening on Todd's Road. I was one of the first engineers on one of the first developments out there. And I kept preaching that doing all of these improvements to Todd's Road over in that area was a shame, a waste of money, because what they did was they put Band-Aids on a bad piece of road that's horizontally and vertically incorrect. And then when they widened it, they made it a possibility for extra speed on the road. And now the state and the cities joined together, and they're improving Todd's Road, which needs to be done. Just putting the sidewalk up there, you're just asking for people to, inviting them to walk down into a situation where they can't get out of. It's just not safe. Mr. Easterich, my question. Ms. Godfrey. My question is, currently the only pedestrian access to the church is on Nicholasville Road or out of your car through the parking lot. That's correct. And by Vanderbilt Drive, ma'am, right here. This extends, we've dedicated that piece of land. That will walk directly into the church property? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And Nicholasville Road, if people, there's really, if you know Nicholasville Road, Fayette Mall's over here. It's all commercial. There's not people walk up and down Nicholasville Road. I'm a little bit turned around because I'm thinking Fayette Mall's right here, ma'am. Right. But from Nicholasville Road to the driveway on that property Is right down here. Right. And that's the 500 feet of sidewalk. Yes. So if the person comes out of the church property on the sidewalk walking towards Nicholasville Road, the sidewalk is leading to Nicholasville Road, not to the rest of Wilson Down. That's correct. So that's the piece. So you're not inviting them to walk out into traffic. You're leading them back to the rest of the sidewalk. Decide where there is no rest of Wilson Down and there is no sidewalk, right? That's correct. You're very right. So we're just asking you to build from your driveway back to Nicholasville Road where there is the sidewalk. Okay. I just want to understand that. Thank you, Ms. Godfrey. Ms. Phillips, did you have something? Frank, did you want to say something? Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Penn. Yeah, if we grant this waiver and Wilson Downing Road is widened, do you still have the obligation to build a sidewalk? No, it would be in the plans with the widening and construction of Wilson Downing Road. So that would not relieve the church of the future responsibility of building the sidewalk? It would. The sidewalk would not be the responsibility of the church to construct. We have given land for the construction of the sidewalk. It would be the responsibility of the highway then? The highway department or the UCG who sponsored the construction of the road would have to build the sidewalk. Ms. Phillips? The property runs, is it 520, 527 feet along Wilson Downing, which is a tenth of a mile? Yes, ma'am. And is the driveway shown in yellow on this plan? It's a... Because the driveway is only 70 feet. It's right in here is where the driveway is, Ms. Okay. And is the, you showed us the vegetated area that serves as a stormwater? Yes, ma'am. And is that from the driveway down towards Wilson Downing? Yes, ma'am. It's right in this area right here. But that's from the, that's between the driveway and the balance of Wilson Downing, not between... That's correct. That's correct, ma'am. No, ma'am. Okay. This area up in here has been graded and shaped up as requirements of the Lexington County Government for the turn lane. But there's not any kind of physical hardship associated with the property between... The only hardship really there is a utility company has come in and put poles in with anchors on it. But between the drive... Yeah, right in this area right here. Between the drive, basically, and Nicholasville Road, you're not encumbered by the storm drains or any of those other... No, just utility poles and utility line and anchors. Okay. That's correct. And I have another question for staff. Yes. Is there a requirement on the books that our sidewalks come within a certain distance of curbing adjacent to the street? Or can that sidewalk meander around a utility pole, let's say, or a tree that may exist? Or do we require them to be parallel to any kind of street? They build them according to the approved cross section. If they need to vary those, they can come to you again for a waiver. You may recall we did that recently for trees in the Hope Six Project, where we meandered as necessary to site conditions. So that relief is available to them for site conditions. Thank you. And I guess I should point out, and I'll ask Ms. Weddle, if you do grant this waiver, you will need findings, because the staff has recommended disapproval. So please be mindful of that. Any other questions? First, before I forget, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request in favor or in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Martin, do you have any additional things you'd like to add? No. Okay. Mr. Eastert, do you have anything? No, thank you. Okay. At this time, we'll turn it over to Commission members for any comments. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Mr. Quiggins? How far was it down to the driveway? About 527 feet. 527 feet. Is that the entire property line? Or is it to that driveway? I believe I can answer that. That's the entire frontage, based on the measurements provided by the applicant on their framing. Okay. So it's maybe 300 feet to the driveway? Yes, sir. I think that. Just an approximation. It's in that general vicinity. Okay. Any additional comments? Questions? Again, this is a continued discussion with regards to the Petitioner's request to remove the sidewalk along Wilson Downing. As noted in the Subdivision Committee, it was referred to the full Commission. You've seen staff's presentation, as well as that of the Petitioner. Chairman? Mr. Mahan? I just continue to be bothered with those kids that live down there at the end of Brigadoon, in that area. And I know they go play those, whatever it is you play at Fayette Mall. And how do they get there? Are those kids walking on the street? Mr. Mahan, I'd say they are, because there was no paths, as you saw in the pictures. There was no paths shown on the grass and in the edge. The hillside up there is very steep. They have to be walking or changing their route each time, sir. I mean, I guess that's my concern about this sidewalk deal, either. Paul? I have a question. Am I correct in assuming that there is no entrance directly off of Nicholasville Road into the church? And if, say, I were to be walking down Nicholasville Road from having taken public transportation, how would I get into the church? Through the front doors, ma'am. So there's a sidewalk that comes to the church right off of Nicholasville Road? Gosh, that's a good question. I haven't looked at that. Can we look at the area? I'll answer your question. Put up the pictometry. I got focused on one item, ma'am, and lost scale. No, there's not, as you can see. So if I took public transportation to get to the church, I would have to get off on Nicholasville Road and then walk down Wilson Downing with no sidewalk into the church parking lot? Yes, sir. Okay, are there any additional questions or comments? Are we ready to take action on this application? Mr. Chairman, I don't even know how to phrase this, but my thinking, and I guess I kind of want to see what the support is among the rest of the commission members, is to possibly not require the sidewalk between the driveway and the balance of property that goes down Wilson Downing, but to require the sidewalk from the drive back towards Nicholasville Road. That's kind of where I think we should, and Carolyn's nodding, but I don't know how to make that motion. Ms. Rytle, is there some assistance there? We would need some findings. I'm kind of confused because I think that's the only area where the sidewalk is being required. That would be an approval of, I mean, sorry, a disapproval of the waiver because that's the only area where the sidewalk is being constructed. It currently exists along Nicholasville Road, if I'm correct. Mr. Martin, can you just quickly clarify? I may help clarify again. The entire frontage on Wilson Downing is approximately 527 feet. The driveway itself is about 70 feet. There is frontage down to the driveway and further east on Wilson Downing. There is additional frontage for the property. So what you're anticipating is a possible partial graining of the waiver? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? What we're doing here is we're deciding, I mean, we know a sidewalk's going to be built eventually. Either the applicant or the church is going to build their part of the sidewalk or when it's widened, the city or the state's going to build that part of the sidewalk. So it's a question of timing. It's a question of who's going to build it. Thank you. Ms. Coughlin, you have motion 1 and 8? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for disapproval of the waiver request for Plan 2007-32F based on the staff report and the two findings presented by staff. Okay, we have a motion and a second to disapprove the waiver request. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. No. One no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I guess our next application is page 7. Is that right, Mr. Salih? Oh, you'd like 5? Okay. We'll take a 5-minute break before we take it. Huh? Okay, we'll take a 5-minute break. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye.  Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Let's go. If you all would like to turn to Page 7, about mid-page, Item C, DP 2007-103 High Point Subdivision, Lot 28 amended. This plan is being brought back to us. They're amending the parking layout on the lot off of Loudon Avenue and also the main property at Loudon and Winchester. They've kind of realigned some of the parking spaces. This property was zoned B3. They had some conditional zoning on the rear portion of the property when it was rezoned about a year ago. The committee has now reviewed over this with the engineer, and we are recommending approval with 15 items. We're deleting number 14, so that's a total of 14, and changing 15 from discussed to resolve compliance with conditional zoning requirements. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Petitioner. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Andy Holmes with Midwest Engineering, and we have worked with the staff over the past few months to come to resolution of their concerns, and I believe that the last plan that we turned in to them is reflected in their new recommendation of approval, and we are in agreement with the conditions as stated by the staff based on that new plan, and we request approval. Thank you. Thank you very much. I guess at this time I really don't see anyone in the audience wishing to speak. Good observation, isn't it, Mr. Aden? At this time. Okay, at this time I'll turn it over to the commission to see if there's any questions or comments and or a motion based on what we've heard. Yes, the staff has now changed their recommendation for approval, deleting number 14 and changing number 15 to say resolve compliance with the conditions. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2007-103 based on the revised plan, deleting number 14 of the conditions and changing number 15 to resolve. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, our next plan is on page 10, I believe, correct? At page 8? Did I miss one? The one they wanted to see, 2007-133. Greendale. Greendale, yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Chris Taylor. I'm a planner with the Division of Planning for some of those of you that haven't met me yet. The next item on the agenda is page 8, DP 2007-133, Greendale Hills, Chesapeake Equine. The property is located at 865 Greendale Road, has frontage on Greendale, and at the rear of the property there is a Citation Boulevard right-of-way. The property is currently zoned I-1. And this plan was reviewed by the subdivision committee and recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions of engineering's acceptance of drainage, traffic engineering, building inspection, urban forester, environmental planner, division of fire, approval of street names and addresses. Conditions 8 through 11 were clean-up items, denotions, denotion of building lines, denote existing easements, addition of street cross-sections, denote the date of the cell tower application approval, and list the conditions. Item number 12 was a discussion item related to the extent of the pavement to the compound. I believe at the committee, in the technical committee, it was division of fire and division of building inspection both expressed concerns, and the staff agreed that that access easement should be paved all the way to the compound. If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I think at the subdivision committee, a portion of it is paved, correct? Yes, that's correct. I believe it's to the pond area to this point, and then the road continues on back this direction. What they're looking to do is take the access easement over this way to the proposed tower. We have a picture we can put up on pictometry if you wish to see it. This proposed cell tower, I believe, isn't it? Yeah, proposed cell tower. Mr. Taylor, when you make reference to the compound, you mean the fenced area inside the fence? That's correct. Okay, all right. Any other questions for Mr. Taylor? Okay, petitioner. Yes, Rory Cahill with VA Partners, paving that all the way to the compound as a continuation of the existing pavement that follows acceptable with us. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cayley, that was easy. You know, you could have said that earlier. Okay, all right. Staff, are you in agreement with that? Yes, we are, and I just would like to clarify that since Mr. Cayley agreed to meet our concerns, that that condition read that that access easement be paved to the approval of the traffic engineer. Is that okay? To the traffic engineer? Okay. We'll work with them and figure out exactly what they're after, but that's fine. Okay. With emergency access on the side of it, too, right? Okay, we have DP 2007-133, Greendell Hills, located 865 Greendell Road. Subdivision committee recommended approval. Changed 12 conditions, changing condition 12 to say that the access easement to be paved to the approval of the traffic engineer. At this time, the chair will entertain the motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2007-133 with the first 11 conditions and changing number 12 to state access easement to be paved to the approval of traffic engineering. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Emmons is going to set up to present to you the center plan, and while he does that, the South Hill Crossing center core plan, while he does that, on page 9, item J, DP 2007-138, Covey Ridge Development, we had anticipated that someone would be here. They did not show up. There is no representation, and we are recommending postponement of that plan. Okay, that's on page 9. Is that correct? Yes, sir, on page 9, item J. DP 2007-138, Covey Ridge, postponement. Okay. You need a motion? At this time, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP 2007-138 to the Which meeting? December 13th? December 13th meeting. We have a motion and a second to postpone until December 13th. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Emmons. I'm going to present on page 10, about the middle of the page, item M, DP 2007-143. This is the South Hill Crossing Center Court Phase 2, and I'm going to ask Barb to put a little color up on Elmo. Ask her to do that so that we have an equal opportunity staff presentations here today. I think everybody's got up to speak today. This is the Phase 2 of the center court. This is a project that basically takes up about two blocks worth of property. It is bounded by South Upper Street. You know the portion of the building that's already built, the mixed-use building. The townhouse buildings that are off of Bolivar Court, which leads into the central parking structure, are approved to be built. This proposal is for the remaining property that has always been shown as Phase 2. It's about two buildings, about 130,000 square feet of buildings. These two buildings are proposed to be completely residential. They're proposed to have 92 dwelling units in it. They will have connections to the central parking garage in through here. Essentially, this, as it's been talked about before, has kind of the repeating element of the courtyards that go around through here. You can see in the red, that's kind of the pedestrian courtyards that these units will face toward, and then ultimately face out towards South Mill Street and towards Cedar Street. The applicants have already, the applicants, the subdivision committee did review this plan. According to Mr. Martin, there were no issues that came up with this. The subdivision committee did recommend approval subject to, I believe, ten conditions. The first eight are sign-offs. Condition number nine was to denote the zoning in the site statistics. By the way, this is zoned MU2, Mixed Use 2 Zoning. The last one was reviewed by the technical committee. The applicant, during the sounding, had requested. This plan was late filed, and the applicant had requested to delete the requirement to go to the technical committee. I can tell you that, as a staff, we do not have any problem with that for a couple of reasons. One, the proposal for phase two development is essentially exactly the same as it has been on this development plan, as it has always been shown ever since the zoning. I could show you on Elmo, just real quick, when the plan was approved for phase one, these buildings were anticipated along with the courtyards. The site statistics are exactly the same. They were proposing the 132,000 square foot of building, the 92 units. There have been no changes in that anticipated development in through there. In fact, even if you go all the way back to the zone change. Yeah, go ahead and show that one. The applicants had submitted this at that time. This development has always been anticipated. The applicant has went ahead, since their subdivision committee, they have already submitted sign-off copies to all of the different divisions in order to try and get their plan fast forwarded after today's hearing, should you delete the technical committee review. I have talked to the members of the technical committee, and I have not had anyone that has had any problem with deleting that at this time. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. The applicants are here to represent their plan. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. So what you're saying on condition 10, you're comfortable with that being removed? Yes, the planning staff is comfortable with deleting that because of the unique circumstances of this request. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you. Petitioner? Thank you. Marina Wise and I have nothing to add. We agree with those conditions. We would appreciate getting the waiver. This allows us, we're close to getting this plan certified, we believe, and then we can get a grading permit. We're trying to start this phase before the winter weather sets in. So it would be a great accommodation to the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from the commission at this time? I think, right, actually, you're just deleting number 10. There's no waiver associated. Oh, I see. So DP-2007-143 with nine conditions based on staff's comfort with deleting 10. So at this time, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP-2007-143 with the first nine conditions deleting number 10. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Next on our agenda is the performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chairman, I call for the release and call of bonds on the subdivision plats denoted on the memorandum from Ron St. Clair, dated November 8th, 2007. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second for the call of bonds and letters. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Mr. Keene. Nothing, Mr. Chairman, other than to remind you that you do have a work session next Thursday, which will be your last one of the year. And we look forward to just having discussion of a number of the text amendments that we have pending. We're also going to do a review of the work program projects so that you know where we are on those in terms of moving forward with the implementation of the 2007 comprehensive plan. Thank you very much. Ms. Gottfried, you had something? Oh, okay. If there's no further business, we'll adjourn this meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're here with Alan Laughlin from the Division of Parks and Recreation. We're going to talk about leaf vacuuming service. Alan, thanks for being with us this morning. Thanks for having me. Alan, we're right in the middle of leaf season. It's actually getting started for you guys. Tell us when leaf vacuuming service is going to start for the citizens of Lexington. Well, we're starting our training session today and throughout this week. And then we kick off the actual residential service a week from today, which will be November 5th. Unfortunately, Mother Nature is throwing a curve at us, and the leaves aren't coming down. I was looking at a sweetgum tree that I looked at this time last year when we did the same show, and the leaves then were red and orange, and now they're just totally green. They haven't even started to change. So that might change our schedule a little bit, but we're going to stick to things as we have planned and best we can. Okay. So that day is when? A week from today is when we start residential. People will see our trucks out this week doing medians and common areas, but that is for training purposes. We'll have to get up the leaves too, but we use those areas for training. Okay. Help us, Alan, with regard to who is actually eligible to receive this service. What residents within Fayette County actually have your vacuum service? The easiest way to explain it is if you have LFUCG solid waste service, garbage collection service, then you're eligible for leaf collection. Okay. And what do they need to do, what do residents need to do to make themselves available to have this service? Just simply rake your leaves between the sidewalk and the street at your home into the utility strip, and we will come around. We've changed our scenario for picking up leaves this year. I could explain what we did last year and years prior, but that might be more confusing. This year we have four zones, and it's simply southeast. First week we'll do south, second week we'll do east zone, third week we'll do north zone, and fourth week we do west zone. We have four zones in four weeks. Having said that, we have one more little area, and we're in that little area where they're intensely dense trees with large mature trees with big leaves, and we have a special collection program in the small area. You can get this information from the LFUCG website, but to find out the actual street, when that actual street, when your leaves will be collected, you can find out by calling, let's call it 311. There will be a map on the LFUCG website as well. Of course, there will be people in the transition areas, so it might be more difficult for them to realize if it's one week or the next week. You can call, let's call it 311, or you can get that information yourself from the website. There will be an active site on there explaining which week we'll be picking it up. That should make it much easier. The first week of leaf collection starting November 5th will be the south zone. Then we go to the east zone second week, north zone third week, and west zone the fourth week. Just get regular leaves on the weekend on Sunday, and we'll be out the following week to get them. Allen, there's probably a couple things that the residents can do to help this go more smoothly for your crews that are out doing the actual vacuuming in terms of keeping the contamination out and making sure that the cars are off the street. Would that help? Very much so. If a car is blocking the leaves, either leaves are behind the car or under the car, we can't get them because too much chance of damaging the vehicle. Speaking of damages, we ask that only leaves be in the leaf piles as opposed to large sticks, rocks. We've even had dead animals and mailboxes in the piles. If you just keep the leaves in the pile, then that saves us a lot of time and obviously the city a lot of money. Allen, I'm sure we should get some questions about what actually happens to the leaves after they were vacuumed and hauled away. That's your area. The leaves are taken to the Haley Pike landfill, and there's a big concrete pad out there. The leaves are piled up on the concrete pad, and then they're environmentally processed. They're composted, and they go back into nature stream. Right. Actually, some of the mulch gets sent back out and handed back out to the residents as we give mulch away. Exactly. One more time, if people want to find out more information regarding leaf vacuum service, and this is going to go on until the end of December? We hope. Our plans were to make two passes everywhere, one pass in November, one pass in December for everyone. It looks like we're getting thrown a little bit behind because of the leaves, but we'll work it out. If you're not sure what zone you're in, call 311-LEXCALL, and they'll be glad to help you out and tell you what street is, what week you're picking up your street, or you can determine that yourself from the LFUCG website. Thanks, Allen, very much. Thank you. I'm here with Russ Turpin. Russ, could you tell us who you're with and what your title is? Sure. My name is Russ Turpin. I'm an environmental specialist with EcoGrow. We're an environmental contracting service company. We specialize in erosion controls and restoring native habitats. Now, we're here at Woodfield Subdivision where there has been restoration of this particular pond. Could you tell us what happened and what you guys did to preserve this? Yeah. We came out to Woodfield Subdivision here. Their pond had been experiencing a lot of erosion on the banks and not a lot of vegetation there to hold the soil in place, and so we came up with an alternative to some of the conventional approaches to handling erosion on pond banks, which was using native plants and trying to restore the natural ecosystem that was here before development. Okay. What type of native plants did you use? We've got about four or five different native grasses, including sideoats, grandma, little bluestem, and about a dozen different wildflowers that were native, all native here to Kentucky. Okay. Now, from Tate's Creek Road, there was a lot of stormwater coming off Tate's Creek into the pond, causing erosion. What else did you guys do in order to prevent some of that stormwater runoff? Well, the first part, what we did is we created what's called a riparian buffer or streamside-pondside buffer, and that's just a lot of vegetation, a lot of good native vegetation. It's got really good, strong roots, so it's covering the area a lot better than conventional turf grasses would. The soil is really poor. It was compacted a lot during construction and had never been able to support typical fescue-type or turf-type grasses. So these native plants, they love it. It's just what they thrive on. So that's one approach. Another approach was we built a path going through the planting so people could use it. The path is made of four to six inches of woodchips, so that's actually working, too, to help slow down the water a little bit more and keep it from coming right into the pond. We also put three different little rock structures that are going to help focus the flow of the water and help slow it down before it gets into the pond. Now, I notice you just did it on the one side. The other side has not been, I guess, filtered in or anything to it. Are you planning on doing something to the other side of the pond? Well, we initially approached, gave that proposal to the subdivision. I think they just wanted to see how the natives are going to work first, and they wanted to give it some time. It's a new technology, and it's something that a lot of people are unfamiliar with. So they just wanted to see it on the worse side where more erosion was occurring and take it from there. Okay, now this side, the erosion was occurring. Have you seen any progress as far as stopping the erosion and or anything of that sort? Yeah, it worked great. Soon after, we put it in in August of 2006. So in September of 2006, there was a really big, I think, four or five-inch rainfall, and we didn't see any erosion occurring. By that time, we had plenty of compost down. I think they're happy about it, right? I have something to say, too. We had a lot of compost down to help hold the soil in place. We had a lot of seeds germinating by that time, once again helping to hold the soil in place. The trail was in place, helping to prevent sediment from washing across the area and into the pond, and also the rock check areas were in place. It worked fine. No signs of sediment in the water.