# Planning Commission Meeting - February 9, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 9, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2398 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2398?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-02-09 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 16,505 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on February 9, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Chairman presided over the meeting, which included nine agenda items, eight motions and votes, and two public comments. The Commission approved six items during the meeting: Liggett & Company, Angliana Avenue – Trinitas Housing Project, Glenn Creek (Dove Creek) (AMD), Tuscany Unit 1-B Section 1 Lots 62 & 63, L.C. Berry & Bella Vista Subdivisions (Panda Express), and Beaumont Farm Unit 1 Section 5 Lot 8. Three items were postponed: Baptist Healthcare System (Central Baptist Hospital) (AMD), Chinoe Village Shopping Center (AMD), and Lochmere Estates (Maple Ridge) (AMD). ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on February 9, 2012: - Derek Paulsen - Eunice Beatty - Mike Owens - Will Berkley - Marie Copeland - Mark McIntosh - Bob Cornett - Rory Cayley - Bill Sallee - Tom Martin - Cheryl Gallt - Chris Taylor - Jimmy Emmons - Dave Jarman - Denice Bullock - Captain Charles Bowen - Jim Black - Tony Barrett - Nick Nicholson - Ms. Cooper - Ms. Drummond - Ms. Rowland - Mr. Ellis - Ms. Cook - Ms. Philips - Mr. Romans - Rochelle - Ms. Blaine - Mr. Wilson - Ms. Blanton - Ms. P. - Ms. Covey - Derek - Ms. Wilson No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company - First Motion** [timestamp: 01:31:27] Ms. Beatty moved for approval of DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company with 13 conditions from the pink sheet, adding conditions 14 and 15, and excluding outdoor live entertainment. This motion failed on a roll call vote. **DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company - Second Motion** [timestamp: 01:33:35] Ms. Phillips moved for approval of DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company with 15 conditions and no outdoor live entertainment. Ms. Blanton seconded the motion. This motion failed on a roll call vote. **DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company - Third Motion** [timestamp: 01:39:38] Mr. Ellis moved for approval of DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company with 13 conditions from the pink sheet, adding conditions 14 and 15, and with no paved drive aisle. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. This motion passed on a roll call vote. **DP 2012-6 Angliana Avenue Trinitas Housing Project** [timestamp: 01:53:09] Ms. Blaine moved for approval of DP 2012-6 Angliana Avenue Trinitas Housing Project with 12 conditions including rezone to R5, waiver for access point spacing, and four-way stop timing. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion. This motion passed on a roll call vote. **DP 2012-6 Angliana Avenue Access Point Spacing Waiver** [timestamp: 01:53:41] Ms. Blaine moved for approval of a waiver for DP 2012-6 Angliana Avenue for access point spacing with one condition that secondary entrances be exit-only. Ms. Berkley seconded the motion. This motion passed on a roll call vote. **DP 2012-8 Glenn Creek (Dove Creek)** [timestamp: 02:11:04] Ms. Beatty moved for approval of DP 2012-8 Glenn Creek (Dove Creek) with 14 conditions including floodplain setback, tree preservation, and right-of-way dedication. Mr. Owens seconded the motion. This motion passed on a roll call vote. **DP 2012-8 Glenn Creek (Dove Creek) Waiver** [timestamp: 02:12:05] Ms. Beatty moved for approval of a waiver for DP 2012-8 Glenn Creek (Dove Creek) with staff recommendations A, B, C, and D, including dedication of right-of-way, bollards on emergency access, pedestrian connection, and revised cross sections. Mr. Owens seconded the motion. This motion passed on a roll call vote. **Release and Call of Bonds** [timestamp: 02:13:05] The Chair moved for acceptance of release and call of bonds dated February 9, 2012. Ms. Plain seconded the motion. This motion passed on a roll call vote. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the meeting during the public comment period. **Ms. Covey** [timestamp: 02:13:49] spoke about an International Traveler Magazine feature highlighting Lexington as a top destination for families. She cited several local attractions that were featured, including the Arboretum, Horse Park, Keeneland, Explorium, and Wallace Station. **Ms. Wilson** [timestamp: 02:14:24] offered remarks congratulating Derek Paulsen on his new appointment. She expressed confidence in the selection and indicated she looked forward to his service in the role. ## Appointments Derek Paulsen was appointed to the Urban County Planning Commission. ## Contested Items The February 9, 2012 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among commissioners. **Live Entertainment Restrictions** Commissioners were divided on how to regulate live entertainment at the facility. The dispute centered on whether to restrict live entertainment to the first pod only or to prohibit outdoor live entertainment entirely. Concerns about noise levels and potential impact on nearby residents drove the discussion, though commissioners disagreed on the appropriate level of restriction needed to address these concerns. **Emergency Access and Future Development** A heated discussion emerged regarding requirements for permanent access to South Forbes Road to accommodate future development. Commissioners debated whether such access should be mandated, with significant concerns raised about the safety and feasibility of this requirement, particularly if the applicant was unable to acquire adjacent properties necessary to establish the access route. This disagreement reflected broader questions about balancing future development potential against practical constraints. **Paved Drive Aisle Requirement** Commissioners split on whether to require paving of the gravel drive aisle surrounding the building. Those supporting the paving requirement cited safety and usability concerns, while others argued that paving would negatively impact stormwater management systems. This technical disagreement highlighted competing priorities between operational functionality and environmental considerations. ## Liggett & Company **Agenda Item:** DP 2011-97 The Planning Commission discussed the adaptive reuse of a former tobacco warehouse located at 1211 Manchester Street. [timestamp: 01:11:30] **Key Issues Discussed** The Commission addressed several significant concerns related to the proposed development: - **Phasing of development** – The timeline and sequencing of the project's construction phases - **Stormwater management** – Drainage and water management systems for the site - **Live entertainment restrictions** – Limitations on where live entertainment could occur within the facility - **Emergency access** – Ensuring adequate emergency vehicle access to Liggett Street - **Paved drive aisle** – The need for a properly paved drive aisle on the property **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Jimmy Emmons, Jim Black, and Captain Charles Bowen. **Staff Recommendation and Conditions** Staff recommended approval of the project with revised conditions, including: - Limiting live entertainment to the first pod of the warehouse - Requiring maintenance of the existing gravel drive aisle **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the adaptive reuse project for the former tobacco warehouse at 1211 Manchester Street. ## Angliana Avenue – Trinitas Housing Project [timestamp: 01:43:09] The Commission reviewed a proposal for a 278-unit apartment complex on Angliana Avenue, identified as DP 2012-6. **Proposal Details** The development plan required two approvals: a zoning change to R5 and a waiver for access point spacing on a collector street. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of both the development plan and the waiver. The recommendation cited traffic safety and pedestrian access benefits as justifications for the proposed changes. **Key Participants** Chris Taylor and Nick Nicholson were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Outcome** The Commission approved both the development plan and the waiver with conditions. ## Glenn Creek (Dove Creek) (AMD) **Agenda Item:** DP 2012-8 **Type:** Discussion **Transcript Location:** [timestamp: 01:55:05] The Commission considered a senior housing development proposal for a property known as Glenn Creek (Dove Creek). The project involved a property with existing floodplain and access constraints that required staff review and Commission consideration. **Key Issues** The applicant requested a waiver for street improvements on Jones Trail, which is a remnant rural street. The property's floodplain and existing access limitations were central to the discussion and review process. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of both the waiver and the development plan, subject to conditions designed to address environmental and site planning concerns. The recommended conditions included: - Tree protection measures - Floodplain setbacks - Pedestrian access improvements **Key Speakers** Chris Taylor and Tony Barrett participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The Commission approved both the waiver for street improvements on Jones Trail and the development plan with the recommended conditions. ## Tuscany, Unit 1-B, Sec. 1, Lots 62 & 63 The Commission approved a final subdivision plan for Tuscany, Unit 1-B, Sec. 1, Lots 62 & 63 (Plan 2012-2F) as a consent agenda item [timestamp: 00:08:45]. The plan was presented without discussion. The Subdivision Committee had previously recommended the plan for conditional approval, and the Commission voted to approve it based on that recommendation. **Outcome:** Approved ## L.C. Berry & Bella Vista Subdivisions (Panda Express) **Agenda Item:** DP 2012-3 The Commission considered a development plan for the L.C. Berry & Bella Vista Subdivisions Panda Express site. [timestamp: 00:08:45] **Presentation and Action** Bill Sallee presented this item, which appeared on the consent agenda. The development plan had been recommended for approval by the Subdivision Committee prior to the Commission meeting. No discussion took place during the meeting. The Commission approved the development plan without further deliberation, as it was presented as a consent agenda item with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation for approval already in place. **Outcome** The development plan was approved. ## Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Sec. 5, Lot 8 **Development Plan DP 2012-5** The Commission approved a development plan for Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Sec. 5, Lot 8 as a consent agenda item [timestamp: 00:08:45]. Bill Sallee presented the item. The development plan was recommended for approval by the Subdivision Committee and was approved by the Commission without discussion. **Outcome:** Approved ## Baptist Healthcare System (Central Baptist Hospital) (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2012-4 **Action Taken:** Postponed The Commission postponed consideration of DP 2012-4, the Baptist Healthcare System (Central Baptist Hospital) amendment, to the February 23, 2012 meeting. [timestamp: 00:04:35] The postponement was requested by the applicant, who required additional time to prepare traffic and engineering data necessary for the Commission's review of the proposal. ## Chinoe Village Shopping Center (AMD) **Case Number:** DP 2011-96 **Status:** Continued The Commission continued consideration of the Chinoe Village Shopping Center amendment to the March 8, 2012 meeting. [timestamp: 00:05:38] **Reason for Postponement** The applicant requested additional time to finalize traffic studies and other supporting information required for the project review. **Outcome** The item was postponed to allow the applicant to complete the necessary documentation before the Commission reconvenes to consider the proposal. ## Lochmere Estates (Maple Ridge) (AMD) **Item:** DP 2012-1 **Outcome:** Postponed to March 8, 2012 The Commission considered DP 2012-1, a development proposal for Lochmere Estates in Maple Ridge, during this meeting [timestamp: 00:07:43]. Rory Cayley presented on this agenda item. The Commission identified concerns regarding open space compliance and other technical issues with the proposal that required further review and resolution before proceeding with approval. Due to these outstanding matters, the Commission voted to postpone consideration of DP 2012-1 to allow time for the applicant to address the identified concerns and provide additional information at the next scheduled meeting on March 8, 2012. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — failed (0-0): Approval of DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company with 13 conditions, adding 14 and 15, and excluding outdoor live entertainment - **Motion** — failed (0-0): Approval of DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company with 15 conditions and no outdoor live entertainment - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company with 13 conditions, adding 14 and 15, and no paved drive aisle - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of DP 2012-6 Angliana Avenue Trinitas Housing Project with 12 conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver for DP 2012-6 Angliana Avenue for access point spacing with one condition - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of DP 2012-8 Glenn Creek (Dove Creek) with 14 conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver for DP 2012-8 Glenn Creek (Dove Creek) with staff recommendations A, B, C, D - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Acceptance of release and call of bonds dated February 9, 2012 --- ## Full transcript Music I guess I don't know what it is. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to call a mission to a quarter. First, I'm approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion for the approval of the minutes? I think we have the minutes. Mr. Chairman, we do not have any minutes available today. All right, then. Moving on. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Mark McIntosh with HDR Engineering. On page three of today's agenda, and this will be item D, DP 2012-4, Baptist Health Care. We would like to postpone two weeks until the February 23rd Planning Commission meeting. Anyone in the audience want to speak to this? Postpone it. I'll entertain a motion. Postpone it until the February 23rd meeting. Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement of DP 2012-4 until February 23, 2012. All right. I have a second. Vote electronically, please. Motion passes. Thank you. Any other postponements? Mr. Chairman, my name is Bob Cornett. I'm with the Roberts Group here to represent Kroger, DP2011-96, Shinaway Road Fuel Center. We need a little bit more time with our traffic study and some other information we're trying to prepare, and we're asking for a one-month postponement to the March 8th meeting. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may comment, this item was continued to today's meeting from your meeting in December. Very technical matter, we would ask you to continue this item further rather than postpone it. Thank you. Continue rather than postpone it? Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Do we need a motion for continuance, or can we just continue then? The commission does need a motion. We're not sure if there's anyone here in opposition to this request or not. Anyone like to speak to DP 2011-96 Shinoahe Village? All right. Then I'll entertain a motion for continuance. What is the difference between continuance and postponation? Well, at the last meeting, the continuance was instead of, well, everything that went into the discussion last month or in December would be a part of this month and not start all over again. Everything should still stay the same. You'll still be able to make all comments that you want to be able to make. Effectively, we'll hear it next month. I entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to continue DP 2011-96 to March 8th meeting. Second. Motion has been seconded. Please vote electronically. Did you see you changed from Marie to Mike? Motion passes. Are there any other postponements? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. On page 2, under Development Plans Item B, DP 2012-1, Lock Mirror States, request a one-month postponement to the March 8th meeting. All right. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this? All right. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone DP 2012-1 Lockmere Estates until the March 8th meeting one month. Okay. Second, Mr. Chairman. March 8th meeting. All right. It's been seconded. Please vote electronically. Thank you. And the motion has passed. Mr. Salley, do we have anything on the consent agenda? Mr. Chairman, there are three items that the Commission can consider at this time for your consent agenda. The first appears on page 2, item A of your meeting agenda. This is a final subdivision plat that has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. It is Plan 2012-2F, Tuscany Unit 1B, Section 1, Lot 62 and 63. These properties are located at 2413 and 2409 Rossini Place. In addition, there are two final development plans recommended for approval by your subdivision committee that can also be considered on your consent agenda. The first is on page 3, item C of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-3, L.C. Berry and Bella Vista subdivisions, also known as Panda Express, for property at 2433 Nicholsville Road. The other development plan is two items below on your meeting agenda, page 3, item E, DP 2012-5, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 5, Lot 8, for property at 1136 Monarch Street. Unless a member of the Commission or a member of the audience would like to remove one of these three items from your consent agenda for further discussion, the Commission can consider approval based on your subdivision committee recommendation at this time. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to any of these three plans? Anyone on Commission? All right, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the Senate agenda as we're in. All right. Second. Seconded by Ms. Bainey. Please vote electronically. And the motion is passed. Mr. Chairman, that leaves three items for discussion. We'll set up and be prepared to begin in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm ready to present your first discussion item for you today. On your agenda, it's located on page two in about the middle of the page. It's DP 2011-97 Liggett & Company. This is for a property located at 1211 Manchester Street. It's a proposed development plan for an adaptive reuse project for an old tobacco warehouse building. In order to facilitate just a few housekeeping things, I have passed out at the top of your table three handouts. a pink page which has a revised staff recommendation that is different than what appears on today's agenda, and on the back side of that has a phasing of development proposal that will be discussed. I've also passed out with that the regulations for adaptive reuse projects and a small colored copy of the development plan, which I'll put on Elmo also, that physically shows the phasing of the development as we'll talk about it. For the audience members, there are additional copies on our table if we need any of those. And the final housekeeping thing, this development plan does require a sign to be put up by the developer. the developer has submitted a picture of the required signage and an affidavit that we've turned in before the hearing. Mr. Chairman, we do have the affidavit. It appears to be in order, and we have a picture of the sign to show you. I believe that is all of the housekeeping, and now I can get to the presentation on the subject property. As I mentioned earlier, this property is located on Manchester Street. It does not directly front onto Manchester Street, but has an access across the railroad tracks. There is one other piece of property. It does have a Manchester Street address because that is its primary access to the subject property. This property sits right directly across from the Distillery District West, another adaptive reuse project on Manchester Street. And we have some pictures from the subject property that looks out, and you can see just how closely this piece of property relates to that distillery district adaptive reuse project. To the north of the subject property is a portion of the Melrose Oak Park Neighborhood Association, in particular the properties along Liggett Street. This proposal is an existing 120,000 square foot warehouse. This building is actually already subdivided into six distinct 20,000-square-foot pods. There is currently, it has a parking and circulation that goes around the building. It's set up for a one-way circulation so that you would come in off of Manchester Street, circle around the building, and then back out onto Manchester Street. The current parking lot has a combination of asphalt, concrete, and gravel. So there are portions and parts of this property out there that exist today that has, I've been on the site enough, if there are any questions about where those are, I can delineate those for you on the plan if that becomes an issue. But essentially, most of this front area that is nearest the front pod of the development whenever you come in, that is essentially paved in existing parking for there. Essentially in the back is mostly gravel parking. Also off of the back of this, and you can see we've highlighted, there is an existing access that is an emergency access only through the residential zone out to Liggett Street. Because as I mentioned, you have to go across the railroad track to get into this property, and it is currently its only actual access other than the emergency access. This property has been in front of the Board of Adjustment previously. You might know this property as the Antique Affair. When it moved off of Angliana Avenue, it moved to this location and occupies the front two spaces of the front two pods, or at least the front pod of this site. When the Board of Adjustment approved that, they regulated, said that the emergency access would be used for emergency purposes and not used as a part of the antique affair. They also limited the antique shows as a conditional use in the I-1 zone to one show a month, and there were a few other restrictions on that. As of right now, what the applicant is proposing to do is they are proposing with this development plan, it shows a full build-out of this site where all of the parking would be upgraded to asphalt parking. landscaping would be put in per the regulations when that would be all done up to meet our current standards for parking and regulations that that would yield 196 parking spaces on site for the subject property the adapt the parking required for an adaptive reuse project is one half of the required parking for those uses where they're first allowed. So if you have a restaurant that would be based off of one space for every four seats, this would be one space for every eight seats. It would be half of the required parking. As we've done with all of our adaptive reuse projects, there is such an incredible difference between the uses that are allowed. You can still have your shops of special trade, your landscapers and things like that in an adaptive reuse project. But you could also have things like nightclubs, and they have very different parking requirements. We found in the past with our other adaptive reuse projects, it's very difficult on the development plan to state exactly what uses are going to be coming in because there's so much flexibility in that. So what is proposed on this one is that the occupancy would be limited to the available parking. To give you an idea, the highest parking generator use that could go in here would be a nightclub or something of that nature. and they have enough parking that roughly one half to one third of this site could be totally done out as a nightclub and still meet their parking on site. Then they would need to look for off-site parking arrangements or joint parking arrangements or some other type of parking arrangement to kind of fill in that gap. So if they have uses that have less parking, obviously this site along with all of our other adaptive reuses it's very uh it's the responsibility of the property owner to know whenever they're getting their clients in how much parking that client has taken up that's enforced by the urban county government as they come in and get their occupancy permits for all of our adaptive reuses we are having to keep a running total of everybody who's got an occupancy permit how much parking they've got how much parking they've done and that's just something that we've had to establish with all of our adaptive reuse projects that is what is being proposed here rather than specific uses the applicant has proved has told us that their immediate plans should they be approved would be to move the antique affair into the second pod and then look for some sort of banquet facility or something in this in the first pod that is i've been in the building and i have pictures of the building uh the that that's that would get their foot in the door the the quickest that they could do on this we do have a revised point this is a revised plan that was submitted the it appears on your agenda with the recommendation of postponement and four discussion items and several cleanup conditions. Last week at your subdivision committee, the applicant did present the revised development plan as it was submitted, but the committee chose to not take no action. And so the last time that the committee took action on this was in December 1st, and that is the recommendation that you see on the agenda. In response to the applicant's planning commission being at the end of your 90-day period and the applicant's desire to move forward, the staff has looked at the revised submission, and we are recommending changes to the conditions as noted on the pink sheet. Conditions 1 through 8 are typical engineering, traffic, waste management, fire, Department of Fire sign-offs. You can see conditions 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and also 15 were cleanup conditions, things that were missing off of the originally submitted plan that the applicant has cleaned up on the revised submittal that we have today. Staff is recommending that we delete those conditions. If you look at the new numbering, new number 10 would be submit details regarding the provision of public art. There is an existing mural on the subject property. The applicant is proposing as a part of this adaptive reuse project to continue that type of a mural on the side of the building, on the Manchester side of the building, and they are proposing to do that to meet the public arts component. I forgot. I now remember there was one other housekeeping item. All adaptive reuse projects, if you remember, they have a lot of conditions that they have to meet. They need to meet the goals and objectives of our comprehensive plan, and that there were nine criteria that you had to meet at least three of the nine criteria. The applicants do meet four of the nine criteria, with the public art being one of those. And so the staff felt that it was important that we get details on how, show on the development plan where the public art would be installed, when it would be installed, other details to ensure that when it comes time for that portion of the development, that the government can say, okay, you said you were going to do your public art, now let's see it. The conditions, the final four, there were four discussion items, and I'll try and go over them one at a time and try and keep as distinct as possible without letting one bleed into the other. The first one was to discuss stormwater management on the site. But the staff, after talking with the Division of Engineering during the subdivision committee and looking at this, the staff is recommending that we change the wording on that to denote the timing of stormwater improvements at Phase 2 to the approval of the Division of Engineering. if you look at the new number 12 it was discussed the phasing of the development this is a direct lead into the new one to note the phasing of the development and this is where I would ask the commission to turn over the pink sheet on the back this is the phasing of development that was proposed to the subdivision committee at your December 1st subdivision committee. It was also discussed, even though there was no official action at our last subdivision committee, we did talk about this a little bit. The staff has made minor changes to our recommendation since the December 1st committee meeting, and those are in bold on this. you can see that as it's being proposed the first 20,000 square feet or the first pod of development would be allowed to occupy one of the new adaptive reuse provisions one of the new uses that would be allowed with the adaptive reuse without doing very little physical changes to the property. In December, the staff was recommending none utilizing the existing parking because there is enough asphalt parking in the Phase I area that it would be able to meet the needs for that first 20,000 square feet. We also added a condition because there are, on the Manchester side of the building, there is an old elevated walkway, and it does show up on your development plan throughout the subject property. Some of that elevated walkway is in bad shape, and some of it is in better shape. The staff has always taken the position that that elevated walkway either needs to be repaired or removed as necessary. So for the first phase of development as it's being proposed, and I do have a picture of this if you need to see it, but the elevated walkway in that area is actually up towards the entrance on Manchester Street is in the best shape of all of the elevated walkways through there. It does have railing. We found it necessary that if that were going to remain, that the railing is installed as necessary to meet the building code and everything of that nature. The staff is otherwise the phasing would start with new parking lot phasing and parking lot improvements, would start with the second pod of development up to 40,000 square feet of new adaptive reuses and the completion of the public art would be required in order to occupy the second one and removal or repair of the elevated walkway along any of the pods of development. And as you can see, as you go down the phasing, we've got 20, 40, 60, 80, and then up to the full development of the 120,000. If we could put the colored development plan that shows the phasing. and you do have a copy of this at your seat if you want to see it. Phase one, which is shown in the orange, there is only a small portion of those parking spaces that are currently gravel, but the rest of what you see is already asphalt. It probably needs some repair to the asphalt, but the asphalt is there. so then phase two is next to the properties along liggett avenue and that's highlighted in the yellow phase three is at the end of the building in the green and then the proposed phase four would be the final parking lot and the drive aisle on the manchester road side of the subject property It was discussed in traffic engineering, and it was talked about at our last subdivision committee, that it might be wise to have the dry vial around the entire building to not be gravel. So also on the drawing, we've highlighted in red with the red dots essentially the area that is currently gravel that if you wanted to take that drive aisle and make that either an asphalt surface or some sort of concrete. essentially in the area where it's yellow in phase two of the parking that main drive vial is an existing concrete drive vial for the subject property with gravel parking spaces coming off of the grant the concrete gravel the staff feels comfortable with recommending this phasing of development it is very similar to with what we've done with our other adaptive reuse projects, Distillery District, Manchester Street, and the Bread Box, where we've allowed the developer to get their foot in the door, so to speak, with a small amount of the new adaptive reuses. And then as those new uses generate income, then to phase out the improvements until you get to the ultimate outcome of the full development of the adaptive reuse project. percentage-wise, this proposal is very much in line with those other adaptive reuse proposals that the Planning Commission has approved. The next discussion item would be discuss the possible and proposed uses. I think I can, using the regulations, I think I can explain this one the best. If you turn to page 8-68, you can see the new uses that would be allowed for the subject property if the adaptive reuse project is approved. The staff noted how close this project was to the existing neighborhood, the Melrose Oak Park subdivision and the properties along there, and the staff originally had brought this up as a discussion item. In particular, you can see items number four and seven that would include the live entertainment for this. The staff was, when we brought up the discussion item originally, It was out of concern for how close proximity this development is to the existing residential neighborhood. After having been on the site many, many times, there's really only one area on this property that I would be concerned with those live entertainment uses, and that would be in the area in between the building and the residential properties. This site has actually been cut down long, long ago, probably back in the 20s and 30s whenever this site was originally being built for the tobacco warehouse. It's pretty obvious that it was cut down. The site is generally about 8 to 10 feet lower than the subject properties. And as you go out and look at it, and I do have some pictures if you want to see them, there's a very dense vegetation that's on top of a rock ledge from where they had cut down on this subject property. I believe that if there was some sort of live entertainment going on in this area, you would end up with kind of an echo effect between the building and the rock wall, and the sound would come up and actually be amplified in the people's backyards. But then I got to thinking, what is the likelihood that this, out of all the spaces on here, this would be a place to hold a live entertainment event? It's not very likely. It's the main drive aisle around the building. They would essentially be on a one-way system. They would essentially be cutting themselves off if they chose to have an event out there. A much more likely place, if you were going to have any sort of outdoor entertainment, would be on the existing concrete pad that's oriented towards Manchester Street, up where the existing mural and the proposed mural and the area that they're focusing on doing their improvements on. So based off of the analysis of this site, the staff is no longer concerned about the possible and proposed uses for the subject property being a nuisance on Liggett Street. I think one place where I believe it would be a problem is so unlikely that anyone would ever want to do anything there that I don't see it necessary for the government to get in and further regulate those uses on there whenever we don't need to. Based on that analysis, the staff is recommending just deleting that discussion item. And then the final discussion item for the subject property would be to discuss the emergency access as it gets out to Liggett Street. I did mention earlier that this site has been to the Board of Adjustment previously whenever the antique affair was done. When the board acted on it, it was very clear in their motion that they intended for the Liggett Street access to be just an emergency access and that it not be used for any of the antique businesses or for normal operations for the antique business. The staff has taken that cue from the Board of Adjustment and recommended to include that in our recommendation, but it would extend beyond just the antique sales. It would extend for the normal businesses, for all of the adaptive reuses on this property. We are recommending to denote on the plan that the emergency access gate to Liggett Avenue will not be used by customers, vendors, employees, or other aspect of the business. It is noted on the plan already as an emergency access point. So there was some discussion back in our committees about, well, what constitutes an emergency? Do we need to put on there if the railroad is blocking the main entrance for more than 30 minutes? But it would be an enforcement nightmare to have somebody out there timing it on whether it was closed for 28 minutes or 32 minutes. I think it is safe to assume, and I feel comfortable getting on the record here, that if there is a train blocking that for any length of time, then that would be considered an emergency and appropriate to open up the back gate onto Leggett Avenue. I believe that common sense could and should prevail in this, and happy to go on the record in that vein. There was some history about that Liggett Street access being used to where the neighbors on Liggett Street were upset about it. My investigation into that and to find out what was really going on is that there was a new asphalt being laid across the railroad tracks at this entrance. and while that work was being done the gates were open on the ligget street and all of the business was using that i believe that that for a while a short period of time the even after that was over people saw how convenient it was to come in off of south forbes go down ligget and come into the back of the property that they wanted to keep it open and then there was a bit of a squabble where neighbors started putting stuff in the way to block off that access, and the fire department had to come out and say, you can't block off my emergency access. The fire department is very much in favor of keeping that emergency access open and free and clear, but as an appropriate emergency access, not for the normal business for this adaptive reuse project. I believe that concludes my prepared remarks for this. And I have many, many pictures of the subject property, and I can probably answer whatever questions that you have. But in the essence of time, I wanted to try and summarize and get straight to the discussion items on this. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. And, of course, I'll be available throughout the hearing. I do know that the applicants are here, and if you have any questions for them. Ms. Cooper. Yes, I have a question, Mr. Emmons. Yes. On the pink sheet, it talks about the emergency access gate. It doesn't say who's going to maintain it. Is that just a given that it would be this property that would maintain it, or should we add that? I had not thought about that. I believe it's a given that it would be maintained. Currently, the property that the emergency access goes through is owned by the same property owner that owns the adaptive reuse project. They would have very much a disincentive from a business standpoint to sell off one property without the other. them maintaining control of their own emergency access I believe should be a part of their business plan and be important the only way that I know of for the government to regulatorily say that that needs to be one property and everything of that nature would be to consolidate the two properties but I would caution against doing that because it would be very unusual for us to consolidate an existing residential lot with an industrial lot out to a residential street. It seems like that consolidated. In fact, if the applicants had brought that in, we would probably bring that to you with concern about that. I'm just talking about the gate staying up on its hinges and being locked. And when they cut the lock, who puts it back? I apologize. I didn't understand your question. I thought I was answering it. It would be the applicant's responsibility. It's shown on their property. The gate is actually on the industrial property. So you don't think we should add emergency gates shall be maintained and for use by customers, blah, blah, blah. We certainly can put a maintenance note on there. The other thing is if you're talking about nightclubs, and it brings to mind the Newport disaster we had years ago where people could not get out of a nightclub, and it's possible that you could have garage doors facing both alleys and have a blow-through and even a second floor because it's my understanding Mr. Black can help us with this, that it's solid concrete and very supportive of weight. So you could have a two-story building there with blow-throughs and a lot of music. And had you thought about that as far as hurting or being a nuisance to the neighborhood that's behind this? I have. If it were just the doors being open, how sound travels, you'd be talking about where your point source of your sound was coming from. In this instance, it would be coming out of the narrow area of where the door is open and then would reverberate between, have that echoing effect between the rock wall and the wall of the building. and so it would be a lot less sound than if your point source of your sound were actually in between those two barriers. As far as adding second floors, the buildings are certainly big enough. The interior, you could add mezzanines and stuff in there if it met the building code. But they would have to actually come back to the development, back to the planning commission, and ask for more floor area because the amount of floor area that is proposed on this would be the one floor, one story as it exists today. That's all that the applicants have proposed. Well, what if they cut off, say, the fifth pod or the last two pods and took it up, you've got one, two, three, six pods. So you cut out the back two and you put a two-story section on the first four pods. Would they have to come back then? There's a possibility that it might qualify as a minor amendment, but I believe that that would be enough of a change to the concept of what's being proposed that the staff would likely refer that back to the planning commission. Anyway, so I don't believe that you would see something like that happening without your approval. Okay, now, I understand that there's a railroad there that's between Manchester Street and this building. Can you tell me something about the nature of use of that railroad? because that railroad can block the entrance to all of this lot. It can, and in the times that I have been on the property, there have been once or twice that I've been on the property and had to wait on a train as they're moving back and forth. The bright red R.J. Corman trains are what you see the most. But in my personal experience, I wasn't trapped on the property for more than five minutes, It's nothing that you couldn't wait. I do know that these rail tracks, as part of RJ Corman's dinner train, goes by there. On the other side of the railroad tracks, you have essentially vacant properties that are owned by the nearby quarry property. Okay, so it just dead ends downtown at the new road? or it's not servicing warehouses or anything like that? I don't know exactly how much traffic. The applicants who have been on this property even more than I can, I'm sure they can give you an indication of what the normal daily rail traffic is like. I can tell you from my personal experience from the times that I've been out there And also I've been in this corridor a lot because of all the work I've done on the distillery district right across the way. So I'm very familiar with this corridor. Ms. Phillips. Jimmy, was a building permit required to divide the warehouse into the six pods? I believe that those six pods, I think that's how it was originally built. Okay, so that's preexisting. Are there any enhancements to the building? I believe it's been cleaned up. Okay, so they came in for a zoning permit maybe? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. The reason I'm asking is given the geography of this piece of property and its proximity to Town Branch, I'm disinclined to see a whole lot of surface paving because of the water quality effects, and there's clearly no space for stormwater on site. And I understand we try to see improvements through time, but in this particular case, I think that it would do more harm than good. Also, with respect to the numbers of parking spaces, given that they don't have proposed uses for the remaining four pods, you said that they have 196 spaces, and the worst-case scenario under all of the allowable uses would be the nightclub? The nightclub is, I believe, that's the highest parking generator of all of the uses that could go in there. And if this site, if a giant nightclub were proposed for this site, it would eat up roughly half of the square footage before it ate up the required parking on site. The applicants would still have the opportunity to rent parking spaces on the other side of the railroad tracks from the quarry and things of that nature or rent parking spaces from the distillery district across the street. I see no reason that if they had different times that they couldn't share those parking spaces. Well, that was going to be my next question, is that I imagine the antique store probably closes, you know, at normal business closing hours in a nightclub. I would imagine that's when they're just opening. And so I'm having a hard time, at least with the proposed uses that we have on the table today, envisioning when and how we might even get close to using 196 parking spaces, which reinforces my ideas about requiring the pavement. And I don't remember if this was never presented at the zoning committee. At the subdivision committees, we did talk about the applicants had applied for a stormwater grant through our Division of Water Quality, and they had a proposal that would have a lot more pervious pavers and do different types of best management practices for stormwater on the subject property. They did not get the grant, but in talking to Water Quality, it wasn't because they felt that it was a very good application and that the application had merit, but there was another applicant that scored higher than they did, and they ran out of money. Water Quality has encouraged this applicant to reapply for the subject property, and hopefully in the next round of grants that they would be able to do that. Those grants can cover feasibility, design, and construction, so there's multiple stages that those grants can cover. Well, I'm just concerned that, number one, we're asking, given that there are no physical improvements to the structure, that we're asking for these kinds of things to be done when there really is no change to what's been there for dozens and dozens of years. And I think that 196 parking spaces, if that's what's provided now. Granted, this is the only time I've seen this. I've not seen this development plan because we didn't see it on zoning committee. I think that that's excessive, especially given its geography close to town branch. And it's really those sentiments also that the staff looked at phasing out doing the parking improvements. It doesn't seem fair to require the entire thing to be paved whenever the first use goes in. And so what we've tried to propose, and the applicant is also proposing, that it be phased so that as these less industrial uses start taking over, you would end up with a more traditional parking lot. Hopefully by that time it will have some of those innovative best management practices for the stormwater. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jimmy, I appreciate what you've put forth so far. You touched on a couple of things that I had questions about, I guess, first and foremost in looking at this. And it kind of relates to what Len was saying. My concern is what you called the dry valve around. Around the building. You know, with this being a warehouse, the use has been fairly less intense. The intensity, I think, is going to increase. And as the uses get occupied, the pods get occupied, I think parking-wise it's just a situation of what goes in there. with the one-way circular traffic, and you touched on it, I do think that we need to provide provisions to have circular dry valve around it that is usable because, as you've said, right now it's either gravel or it's broken up asphalt and concrete. Have you all had discussion? Is that a possibility as far as is this something we'd add as a condition? I believe that the commission certainly has the authority with your approval to require that. With the phasing of the development, the real question comes in is what's the appropriate phase? If the commission, would you want it right at the start as they're trying to occupy that first pod of development, or would you want it whenever they occupied up to the second pod, the 40,000 square feet, and when we were proposing the other Phase I parking improvements, which are fairly minimal at this point? I mean, I'm just saying that we can put it in. It depends on how quick the uses go in and where they go in. once you get into the second or third pod, you're saying it's one-way traffic. That's not hardly allowing somebody to turn around and go out the other way, which I've done in the past, but antique malls and so forth, it was very easy to do. But when you're asking somebody to go all the way around, I think that drive-all is needed of some sort of substantial use. The other question I had, which you also touched on, having heard neighbors voicing concerns in the past over noise from live entertainment and so forth. One, what is the distance from the building to the property line? To the property line? to the property line it's um about 60 maybe 70 feet and if i remember right being the other hearings i've been in talking about this usually the distance is 100 to 150 feet or something Well, I'm thinking strip shopping centers, Garden Springs, and Alexandria and so forth. Oftentimes, in other parts of the ordinance where we do have a distance requirement from live entertainment, it is 100 feet. In this particular case, some of the geometry of the site, that this site sits about 8 to 10 feet lower than the subject properties. I believe I'm taking that into account when I'm making my recommendation to you. Also, where the houses are, the houses are not right up at the back. They're about, if you measured from building to building, it would be right about 100 feet. Okay. But not from building to zone line or building to backyard or anything of that nature. I would have very concern as far as outdoor entertainment. And knowing that that was a warehouse, I would hazard to guess there's not any soundproofing there. Would there be any soundproofing required before live entertainment went inside? I don't believe that the adaptive reuse ordinance specifically required soundproofing. Okay. All right. Thank you. But I do believe it is the Commission's ability to restrict those types of things on the subject property on this adaptive reuse development plan, if you wanted to. I want to see something go in there, but I don't want to create problems doing it either. Thank you. Mr. Berkley. Jimmy, my question is in regards to the emergency access and the lots. It does not appear that these lots are incorporated into this development plan. I'm just curious as to why they are not, because they're privately owned. The other crossing is a public crossing. Does that not need to be incorporated? It does cover that? This development plan does show that emergency access point and this lot, which is 1208 Liggett Street, is owned by the same owner and applicant as this property. They are separate properties. I understand that, but is it actually incorporated on this development plan? That is a good question. It's not drawn that way. It does not look that way to me either. We could require them to own that property if we wanted to show the limits of the property. I think to insure things down the road, I agree with your comment about the business plan that normally they would not cut their own access off. But I just think it probably needs to be shown simply for the reason that it's privately owned. It's not a public right-of-way. Since this is one of those questions that I just wasn't expecting, I'm going to look over at Bill, too, and see if you had any other comments. I think that's a reasonable condition to require that to be part of the bill. Graphically, it would just be a boulder line around the 1208 Liggett Street. We would add it to in the title block for the subject property. It would be something that we could add as a condition of approval. Any other questions from the Commission? Ms. Beatty. Jimmy, I think we briefly touched on this in committee as it relates to the concerns we have about the neighborhood. Has the neighborhood been in contact? Have they been in communication? Are they aware of the impact that this may have? The staff has not specifically contacted them, and we've not received any phone calls. I don't know if the applicant has contacted them. The required sign has been on the mansion, oriented towards Manchester Street, so for the subject property. Does the commission have any other questions for your staff? If not, we'll go to the petitioner. Thank you very much. Ms. Drummond. Yes. What about light spillage? This development plan does not mention anything other than what would normally be required. Our ordinances already require parking lot lighting to be directed away from any residential zone on the subject property. And I don't think that we had anything's, I don't think that there is any other lighting restriction that is above and beyond that for an adaptive reuse project. I can, as the applicants are talking, I'll reread that ordinance and make sure that I'm correct on that. Because if I were one of those homes backing up to the rock wall that you talk about, it's going to be a sound barrier, I would not want the light coming in my bedroom window. And our ordinance has already required that any type of business parking lot, whether it's an apartment building's parking lot or an industrial parking lot, it requires that that lighting be directed away from any residential properties. Yeah, but still, that's pretty close. You know, a dairy barn light, no, you know, that type of thing. It would just be a problem. I'll reread the ordinance while I'm sitting there to make sure that there isn't anything above and beyond for this type of a project. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Applicant. Good afternoon. I'm Jim Black with J.E. Black, representing the applicant. I think that in previous meetings a lot of discussion has occurred, and Mr. Emmons has done a great job on answering a lot of questions, but I'm here to answer some that might still be laying out there. Questions? Anyone have any questions? Ms. Rowland. Just to follow up with the question that I just asked Jimmy, has there been any contact with the neighborhood or the neighborhood association, with the residents or the neighborhood association? Let me refer that to the owner's representative. Hold on one second. Have we contacted the residents? Introduce yourself here. When we originally went for the conditional use like six years ago for the antique show, we had to send out letters in 400 square foot radius, and we're always talking to the neighbors at the back. And when the gate was open, we talked about that, what the issue was, was our dog was getting out, and actually the gate was open because of actually them pumping the sewer line. And that was closed immediately back. But the gate has a lock on it, and it stays closed, and we maintain that, and a chain at the back. So we talk to the neighborhood people when they come to the antique show, and we're very friendly with them on a neighborhood basis, neighborly basis. So I think our answer is that there has been an ongoing interaction with the neighbors as this project has started to be used, but there hasn't been a specific reintroduction of this development plan to the neighborhood. Mr. Ellis. Thank you. I guess two questions. One, speaking to my concerns, as far as a drive aisle around the building, would you all be agreeable to that as far as, you know, since it is one-way traffic, providing some sort of drive aisle around the building? Well, the area of the project that is closest access to Manchester Street is in better shape than the aisle along the back. If I can turn around, I can point to that. This portion is what's mainly used by the Antique Affair, and it's in better shape. The worst part of the drive aisle is this area along the back. As the drive aisle comes around, all of this gravel is in surprisingly good shape. And the drive aisle along what I would call the Manchester Street side of the building is in pretty good shape. In terms of current maintenance, this area is the worst, and I think I have approval from the owner's representative that if this is a binding, if this is a necessary condition for approval, that the applicant will agree to do that. In other words, maintain a 12-foot or improve as necessary because some of it doesn't need improvement. Improve as necessary a 12-foot dry vile entirely around the building. Now, from an engineering standpoint, that creates a little bit more problem because I'm trying to maintain drainage. and this gravel, particularly on the west side of the building and then along the area facing Manchester Street, that gravel has been there forever. It's had very heavy trucks traveling on it. Even though we haven't done an engineering evaluation on it, There's never a reason to expect that all this gravel has a very good base under it, and it's holding up very well. So from an economic point of view, if we put in a hard surface drive aisle, what is only practical to do is to pave along the existing surface because it's very smooth and effectively just paved the aisle. The problem I'm going to get into from an engineering standpoint is that that is going to block some of the drainage a little bit because we're adding thickness, and now I'm going to back up water behind it. That's probably not a critical issue on this particular project, but I would prefer to leave it gravel. It's had heavy equipment running on it. The heavy equipment is what tears up the paving, not the cars. It's in good condition now. What you're seeing, if Jimmy were to show you some photos, what you would see is very irregular paving in this area and continuing on through here. but the rest of them are going to show very accessible paving. Okay. The other question would be live entertainment. Where do you all stand with that? Kevin, you want to address that? Live entertainment, where it would be, how often, when. As far as possible uses, where would you be as far as live entertainment is concerned? Live entertainment, we would just look at if we had it at the front of the concrete pad that comes up. If you could, grab a microphone. It would be right at the concrete pad on that right there at the front of the building. Is that what you're just asking? which is in good condition. And it lends itself immediately to that kind of a unit. Okay, so you're talking about possible live outdoor entertainment on the front corner where the entrance to the property is. Yes. What about the other pods? What about indoor live entertainment? The other pods, we weren't looking at that. We were looking at the antique show, possible banquet room, art exhibits, and just phase the other two in when we had uses for that. We have developed and done extensive improvements to the first three already. Okay. Thank you. I can see her finger moving. The antique affair is currently occupying this, and they're talking about moving this into the adjacent pod to open this back up, and that would be the first likely location for the nightclub. And then if we had live entertainment outside, it would come out of here. Does this have an off on? It doesn't. It doesn't. Okay. Okay. Would you be willing to limit the live entertainment to one pod then? Yes. The answer I heard from her was yes, and I think the live entertainment would then be aimed at this existing area right there. Okay. All right. Thank you. Ms. Cook. Yes, I would like for the owner's representative to explain to us how she handles, we heard this in subdivision, how she handles the train obstructing the entrance. You had some sort of agreement? Well, RJ Foreman's train, it only moves the entrance. Usually it goes and gets the sand in Louisville, and it's only at nighttime. after 10 or 11. And during the other times, if it's blocking the train, we call the yardmaster. We have his number, and we let them know if we're going to have an event, a huge event at the antique show. And they've worked with us for the past six years and haven't blocked the track for any length of time. So they return at night? They come, and the rail cars move to Louisville, and usually they come back around 10 or 11 o'clock at night on that track, and it's very quickly, and they usually have sand in the trains. And that's the only use for that track is the dinner train? We've seen the dinner train, but no, the sand, when they go and pick up the sand in Louisville, the R.J. Corman trains. They pick up sand? Yes. We have no sand available in Lexington. So all the sand that goes in our concrete has to come from somewhere else. And then it goes where? They transport it to their rail yard, which is by the new bridge, the rail yard there. Okay. Thank you. But we have the number to the yard master, and he says, hello, Vivian. We'll move the train. Okay. That is one thing that concerns me. And so if we had full occupancy, do you have another potential outlet for permanent access and egress? Not other than the emergency access to Liggett Street? Okay. Is that what you're asking? Yes. Have you considered access to South Forbes Road? We considered that, and we talked to the two owners there. And the first one is an elderly lady, and her daughter's handling her affairs. And someone was in the process, my understanding, of buying that property. And I couldn't get the name of the prospective owner, so we kind of left it at that. but she said that she wouldn't have a problem with it. And then also the stockyards, I talked to Jim, and he said that he wouldn't have a problem with it if we needed it, if we got it past her. So you feel like you could get an easement, potentially. Let's say you've got all six pods going strong, and the distillery district is really moving and shaking. you could possibly get an easement there. It's not insurmountable, but to rest this development plan on that, I don't think the owner can go that far at this time. What she said was there's two pieces of property in between this property and Forbes Road. One of them, apparently based on the initial contact, was somewhat favorable. The other piece of property is apparently headed toward an estate-type situation. They've got a potential buyer, and right now I don't think they're willing to commit to any change in their property if they have somebody that's interested and ready to buy it. I think this owner would prefer to have a permanent open access to Forbes. It's just that right now that isn't available. Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you. Jimmy, do you have anything else? First, to answer the question about outdoor lighting, there are no additional outdoor lighting requirements for an adaptive reuse project. The ordinance requires that currently any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be arranged so as to reflect away from any adjoining residential zone or uses in any public or private right-of-way. considering that this entire property is one big building surrounded by parking that current ordinance would say that any lighting that you put on this property would have to be directed away from the public streets and the residential properties. The staff is proposing, based on the conversation of the commission, The staff was trying to propose some additional conditions to deal with what we were discussing. The first one would be the addition of 1208 Liggett Street as a part of the development plan. The next one would be lighting would be per Article 16-2B. That's the regulation that I just read to you. And then a 16th condition that live entertainment shall be limited to the first 20,000 square foot pod and the outdoor patio area indicated on the development plan. And as your staff, when this plan comes in for certification, we will draw the area that is allowed. We'll make it clear on the development plan which area would be allowed for live entertainment. As a development plan, if they wanted to do something, if they wanted to expand that live entertainment uses, they could certainly come back to the Planning Commission and propose an amended development plan if the commission did want to limit that. The final possible change to the conditions that was talked about today would be whether you wanted to require the paving of the aisle surrounding the building. and rather than putting a new condition on the phasing on the back of this, should you want to do that, we can add that either to the first phase that would allow the 20,000 square feet or up to the second phase, which would be the 40,000 square feet. I still feel comfortable telling you that I think that the 40,000 square feet would be the more appropriate limit and that would allow the applicant to get in and get their foot in the door with that first pod of development. Certainly, though, I do not, if the commission feels differently, I'm not going to argue with you and be happy to help you out with that decision. Ms. Philips? Well, I agree with the phasing, including the railings. I think that that's probably a smart business move from an insurance liability perspective. But as I've said already, I don't think that we should be requiring any sort of enhanced paving. If the developer would be agreeable to maintaining the rear portion, We've heard time and again that the back alley on the back side of the building is in less good repair than the front side. That front's on Manchester. I mean, I'd be satisfied if we could just add more gravel or do something to make sure that trucks don't get stuck in the mud or, you know, we don't have any tremendous potholes that people become injured in. But I'd rather see an unimproved surface around this piece of property, independent of what happens with respect to a stormwater grant. You know, we've been, this property has been built and in existence for dozens of years already, and I don't see, I agree with what Mike has said about the intensity of this building will change through time, and I think the developer probably will, if the need arises to enhance the surface of that parking area, they will. And I think that 196 spaces is more than enough, but that's my two cents worth. Any other commissioners have questions? Mr. Romans? I guess a question for Jimmy or legal. As far as limiting live entertainment, I'm presuming that is something we can do? That has always been the concept with the adaptive reuse project whenever it was submitted, that the planning commission through the development plan could limit the uses if they found it appropriate for that adaptive reuse project. But in many ways, these provisions that are in the special provisions in the B4, I1, and I2 zones act as planned unit developments, which are essentially negotiated developments with the planning commission and the developer. I believe that it has always been set up that they can do that. If we get it clear on the development plan, I believe when it comes in for certification, we will clearly denote which areas live entertainment would be allowed in. And if the applicant ever wanted more, they could come back to the Planning Commission and ask for an amended development plan to change that condition. Okay, thank you. Rochelle, do you ask me? She's nodding her head yes. I do have a concern with live entertainment from past experiences and so forth. I'm okay with the first pod simply due to where the residential areas are and so forth. I do have a concern as far as outdoor live entertainment. I would be willing to strike that, though. If you would want to restrict no outdoor live entertainment, we can rewrite that condition. Live entertainment shall be limited to the first 20-square-foot pod and no outdoor live entertainment. If that's the Commission's wishes, we'll make that clear on the conditions. It would translate into a note on the plan that there will be no outdoor live entertainment for the public. I don't understand why we're limiting it to the first pod when that's where the houses are the closest to the building. The houses are farthest away out here at the L of Liggett. I don't understand that reasoning. There is also the topography of the site, even though the houses are actually closer there, there's more elevation change. From being on the site, there's a little more elevation change to the site at that point. But it will be up to the Commission if you want to restrict those uses. I don't think we need number 16, period. Ms. Beatty? I do think that we're really getting very picky here, for the lack of a better word. And I don't think that we should restrict only to the first pod. Marie gave an example earlier of using a pod with the garage doors and having live entertainment and it still be inside. and you see that in various places, I wouldn't have a problem with that. As long as they will be able to come back and it would be amended, then if we feel the need to have an additional condition, that's fine. But I think with these adaptive reuse projects, we can find ourselves getting so closed in on them, and we want things to happen, to be reused. We want these properties to come alive again, but at the same time we seem to be getting so picky about how we go about making that happen for the applicant. So I'm sort of for not restricting it to the point where they can't come back and ask. Now, if there's no live music outside and we all agree on that, that's fine. But to say only the first pod, I'm not sure because I don't know that that makes that much of a difference. Ms. Copeland. I would like to see on the pink sheet on the back here that when you get full development and you're really rocking and rolling down there, that you have a permanent access that's unrestricted. In other words, going out on South Forbes Road. And that would be a condition just at the very end of the pink block, up to 120,000 square feet. It was kicked down, you know, we're kicking the can down the road saying the Board of Adjustments said that you could have a railroad track crossing as an entrance to an antique mall. And that set precedent. If it leaves here and it really gets developed 50 years from now, then they need permanent access condition to a fully developed reusable site. I do not disagree that this site would be well served with access to Forbes Road. My concern is that there are two additional properties that they would have to go through to get there. Right, but the properties have a dog in the fight also because they want this property to go. They want the whole district to go. So they would tend to be supportive of that. It's entirely possible those properties, I believe, are also zoned industrial. And if somebody could work out properties, they could come in with an amended development plan to show that. I think this may be a legal issue, Rochelle. Yeah, I mean, you can't require them to acquire a property that they don't own. I mean, if they get completely developed out, and as you say, they're rocking and rolling, and then they go to these people and they go, no, forget it, we're not interested. Are we going to close them down? You may be putting a condition on there that is simply impossible for them to comply with because they do not own the property. But they would only be, you wouldn't be closing them down, you just wouldn't let them do the last pot, which is probably already storage for that time anyway. So, in other words, the condition you're wanting to put on would not be that they have to acquire that, but they are limited to five pods unless they acquire other access? Five rentable pods, because the sixth pod is probably service by then anyway. I mean, if there is a belief that there is a safety issue that without additional access they can't expand the additional 20,000 feet, I think that could be legally justified, but you can't. It's a safety issue. I understand. But I thought you were saying once they have all six of them developed, then they have to acquire them. In order to have all six. Okay, that would be up to the Commission. It's fully functioning, and it's going to take 30 years, and something else happens to R.J. Corman. I think if the Commission wanted to limit it to five positive development without additional access, I think that would be legally possible. I think we're kind of getting, like Ms. Beatty said, I think we're getting a little bit aside here. We're starting to add on some conditions. Mr. Berkeley? Well, I was just going to make a note about that, Marie. I tend to agree with you. I am worried about the access down the road. But to put a condition on like that, I think then any developer is going to look at the feasibility of what it's going to cost to do this entrance. and it may go against what they're trying to do in that they may not be able to reuse the whole building because of the feasibility issue. And it could very well be that part of it would remain vacant. And I don't know if that's what we're really wanting either. Okay. Anything else? I have nothing else to add. I'll be happy to, if the commission needs any help on wordsmithing as you're looking at your motion on this, we'll be happy to help you. I'd like to ask one question. We've kicked around the live entertainment. Obviously, there's a presumption that that live entertainment is very loud. if the owner was able to entice a upscale restaurant to come into one of the center pods and they wanted to have a piano player, Note 16 would not allow that. And I don't think that's your intent to have them not have a piano player. Can we make that, if you decide to have the Note 16, Can we have that as outdoor live entertainment? To start out with the words outdoor live entertainment. Are you asking that we change number 16 to allow outdoor live entertainment? Well, it's been discussed either have the note or not even have the note at all. What I'm saying is if the note is a condition of approval, can we limit that to outdoor, which would allow them to have piano players and harp players? You're just wanting to limit it so that you are allowed to have live entertainment in one of the pods. Is that what you're saying? Or rewrite the note in a way that allows low-volume entertainment in all the pods. Because as I read that note, that's going to keep them from having a piano player. And I don't think that's the intent. So can we just rewrite the note to allow that? And I don't want that to be a condition that stops approval, but it's a suggestion on my part. Mr. Black, I believe I would agree with you in the fact that my interest is not preventing a piano player from being in any part of that. However, Jimmy might be able to help us. I'm not sure. Live amplified entertainment prohibited. Do you have a suggestion, Jimmy? It's difficult to say amplified because even an acoustic guitar typically gets hooked up to an amplifier for even the smallest outdoor events around campus and stuff like that. So once again, just whatever the commission's wishes, we'll try and help you wordsmith to get your wishes. Okay. And I do still have concern with outdoor of any sort. I know we're going to have to start moving on this. Ms. Phillips. I would just ask maybe that we strike 16 altogether and say no outdoor live entertainment. I don't care where in the building they have entertainment, but just no outdoor live entertainment. I would hope, too, that the applicant would, I mean, we don't really want speakers, you know, to be facing outdoors. The idea is to protect those neighbors, the residents. All right. Amazingly, do we have anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? All right, then if we can, I'd like to just close the hearing and allow for discussion or a motion. Anyone willing to take a stab at a motion? Oh, why not? I guess I've been swayed to some degree. My motion would be for approval of DP 2011-97 with the 13 conditions that's listed on the pink sheet, adding number 14 and 15. And I would be willing to concede and make 16 to the fact that simply no outdoor live entertainment with the development plan. With the, I think Jimmy mentioned, as far as the phasing in, he was saying it would be appropriate drive aisle paved with condition at number two up to 40,000 square feet. Is that where it was, Jimmy? Yeah. Okay. That would be my motion. Any seconds? No seconds? All right. Open up the discussion, Ms. P. Motion. Motion. Motion is dead from a lack of a second. It's dated. I just want to make the comment again on number 16. while this is right on the heels of what we've been seeing as the Art and Entertainment District, I just don't know how we could say no live entertainment. And if there's a safety issue, then I think we should include something like that. But I don't see that being, we haven't had anyone to comment during the hearing for us to say no live entertainment. So I would move to make a motion that we accept DP 2011-97 with the 15 conditions striking number 16. Second by Ms. Blanton. Ms. Phillips? May I ask that the motion be shifted to not require the paving that has been suggested on this? I like the idea of the phasing except for asking that there be sophisticated paving on site. I'm not sure if that needs to be amended because I don't think that was in this. That's an amendment, so you need a second on the amendment. Was it in Ms. Beatty's? No, it was not. She's sort of asking her to put that in as part of her motion, and she has a choice. She can either do it or not. If she agrees to it, then you can restate your motion. Before she restates it. We just amended to include Phillips' amendment. Is it second? Second. Is it second? Ms. Blaine is seconded again. One question, if I may. Ms. Beatty, with your motion, you were talking about allowing live entertainment. are you still allowing live entertainment outside as well? She's allowing it everywhere. No, I was just suggesting that we strike a condition on live entertainment. So my question would be, your motion would allow it inside and outside? Yes. Just inside. Yes, that we would allow it either inside or outside. If they have room, if they have the accommodations to do it outside, that we not get into that. Thank you. Since across the street there could be live music as well. All right. Let's vote on the motion, please. And the motion has failed. Failed. Anyone else? Try a motion. You can get my vote if you put in a safety issue that says something about full occupancy or so many people on site says you have to have a good access and ingress and egress permanent situation. You don't have to own the property so that we don't trap people in there late at night with a train that's stalled or somebody that just had a flat tire on the railroad track. I mean, it sort of disturbs me that this can happen in the future and any kind of plan could come back. And it's always, well, they did it before. we're kicking the can down the road. We don't have to mandate it, but we need to mention it, that we were worried about that. Ms. Phillips. I was hoping to ask the fire chief about the site, if the commission is amenable. Good afternoon. I'm Captain Bowen, Lexington Fire Department. We don't have any issues with the site as it is. They're providing us access if we should need it in an emergency. So we can't require them to have another way out. Captain Bowen, could you tell me, is there a hydrant? What is the proximity to the nearest hydrant? They do have hydrants on the property. I'm working with Ms. Vivian to get them operational, all the hydrants on the property. How many hydrants are there on the site? They have six on the site. They have two that are supposed to be operational, but I'm working with her to make sure that all six are operational. Well, that gives me peace of mind that there are hydrants on site. Mr. Ellis. Let me try again. I keep conceding, I guess. I'll move for approval of DP 2011-97. Whoops, where did my conditions go that was up there? With 13 conditions, I was on the pink sheet. I think number 14 and 15, and raise up a little bit farther. With number 16, I would still just like no outdoor live entertainment. I'll allow it in any pod, but just no outdoor live entertainment. I think that's problematic. Mr. Chairman, I second the motion. And a second by Mr. Wilson. I'm conceiving. All right. Let us try to vote again. What about the paving issue? I mean, are we going to force the paving, or does the motion include that? If you could just clarify. My motion did not include that. It did not include the dry vial. It is not on the pink sheet. The dry vial is not included. It didn't have to be added as a. And it was not. The motion. I don't know what the parliamentary procedure is. The question is, do you want to make an amendment to the motion? I would like to make an amendment to the motion. Mr. Owens, may I amend your motion? You're going to attempt to, yeah. Go for it. What's your amendment? I don't think that we should require any sort of paved parking aisle. I would like to see maintenance of the existing infrastructure on site, gravel so that we're not dealing with mud we're not dealing with potholes that the the drive space is in fact drivable and passable okay that and I don't think an amendment is necessary because that was not part of my motion I left it as the pink sheet reads without any any changes to the pink sheet that shows the infrastructure improvements so yeah my understanding we are I thought the staff wanted it they want the staff the staff would like the whole property to be improved with asphalt and paved and I that's what I do not want to have happen I think that we could save the developer tremendous expense it would compromise stormwater. Our recommendation was just that all the paving be done at full development, but not prior to full development. I don't think that we need to do any paving. Mr. Oven, would you? I would prefer to leave my motion as is without the amendment. All right. Well, let's try to vote again then. And the motion passes. Motion passes. We're on to the next. Mr. Taylor. Thank you all very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda begins on page 3 at the bottom, item F, DP 2012-6 Angliana Avenue Trinitas Housing Project. It continues over onto page 4 of your agenda. The plan that you see before you today is located on Angliana Avenue. the principal part of the development is located on the north side there is an additional portion of the development located on the south side again here we have angliana avenue in this direction is vercelles road back towards me is south broadway you just recently approved an amendment to a development plan on this adjoining piece of property here is the existing student housing development on Angliana Avenue. This development, you can see, is comprised of three buildings. On the north side, with the associated parking, you can see open courtyard areas being in these two buildings. Here is the pool, which is an amenity being proposed with this development. This is the maintenance building and the detention area for this portion of the development. On this side, and again, here's Curry Avenue, the Curry Avenue extending here. Here is an L-shaped building they're proposing with parking primarily in the rear. Their access point is off Angliana. There are no access points proposed to Curry Avenue. This development on this side, these buildings have three access points proposed. Here is your main access point with full traffic movement associated here. We have a secondary point here and a secondary point here. These are proposed to be gated and to be exits only. The plan that you see before you is slightly modified from the original plan. The key modification is this alignment. There was concern expressed by staff and the commission for traffic safety, calming, and pedestrian safety in particular. This alignment allows this intersection to become a four-way stop and to allow appropriate signage and other traffic calming devices and safety features to be approved and be developed there. This shows a crosswalk and a median, which is part of the improvements that will go in this location. As I stated, there are four buildings. They are four stories, 48 feet in height. They do have a 68-foot tower, which is an architectural feature that they've added to their development. There are a total of 278 units. That's 699 bedrooms. They're proposing 544 total parking spaces. The entire building square footage is 360,200 square feet. The lot coverage or the footprint of the buildings is 93,800 square feet, and that's well within the requirements for this zone. The property, if you look at your conditions, you'll see that the first condition is provided that the Urban County Council rezones the property R5. This body did recommend this zone change. It has been placed on the Council docket and it is to be heard on February 17th. The next few conditions, 2 through 8, are your standard sign-off conditions for a final development plan. We're having them clean up a couple of items. That includes amending the title. It is an amended development plan because it was previously zoned for mixed use, you may recall. So technically this is an amended plan. We are asking them to denote the elements of compliance with Article 15-7A of the ordinance. This is an infill requirement. These, again, are architectural details that are required to be on the primary wall plane of the building. We like to have those clearly denoted on a plan so that there's no mistake as to what they have to do or what they should do. They have shown some of these graphically, but they have options available to them, so we just like to have that clearly denoted on the plan. There is also two more conditions. One is provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver. We have distributed that waiver report to you. This is a preliminary subdivision plan as well as a final development plan, and therefore the subdivision regs do apply. I will return to that waiver momentarily. Condition number 12 is to denote the timing and details of the four-way stop intersection at Curry and Angliana. Again, we would like to have that clearly detailed on this development plan, the features that are going to be added, four-way stop signs, et cetera, those types of things that are going to be done at this intersection, and also we believe the timing is important. During the initial discussion of this development, it was indicated that this could be done right at the very beginning when they're doing their full improvements to the right-of-way, and so we would like to have that clearly denoted. The waiver request that you should find at your desk and see before you is a request to waive the minimum spacing requirements in your subdivision regulations that govern the spacing of access points on a collector street. In this situation, I have circled here for you in red. We wish to show you this is the intersection that requires the waiver. The minimum spacing is 200 feet under your subdivision regulations for a high-density development. In this particular instance, the distance from the principal entrance to this entrance is 220 feet. So there's a 30-foot short of the minimum. Now, they have filed the waiver based on hardship, the hardship being the physical existence of Curry and aligning with that, which, of course, is desirable from the staff's perspective to calm traffic and provide pedestrian safety features. This is only a 12% reduction in the standard. It's a minimal reduction in the standard. And they're further hindered, obviously, by their property line. Staff has reviewed this, and we are recommending approval of the waiver for the conditions that you see in your report. we believe that it would be a hardship and that it would be counter to public safety if they had to alter the central location away from Curry Avenue. We think that alignment is much more beneficial and important to public safety. We would add that this is an infill and redevelopment plan and that under your subdivision regulations you can grant a waiver to facilitate infill and redevelopment. This does exemplify the type of problems that you will run into in infill and redevelopment. There is one condition that we recommend on the waiver, and that is that they clearly delineate that those secondary entrances are exit only and the gates be clearly designed to be exit only. With that, your subdivision committee did recommend approval of the plan, and staff is recommending approval of the waiver. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any commission members have any questions for staff at this time? All right. Seeing no questions, we'll move to the applicant. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Trinitas Ventures, LLC. We're in complete agreement with the staff. We're okay with the condition on the waiver and all the added, basically, notes on the development plan. Happily take any questions. Any commissioners have any questions for the applicants? Does staff have anything else I'd like to add? Anyone in the audience would like to speak? All right. I will close the hearing and wait for a motion or discussion. Ms. Blaine. If we're ready for a motion, I move approval of DP 2012-6 Anglian Avenue with the 12 conditions outlined by staff. Second by Mr. Berkley. Do we need to do the waiver separately? I think we usually do them separately just to make sure the record's very clear. Then we will vote first on this and then come back to the waiver. And the motion passes. Ms. Blaine. Move approval of the waiver for DP 2012-6 Angliana Avenue for the three reasons outlined by staff with the one condition. Second by Ms. Berkley. Please vote. And the motion has passed as well. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon. The next item on your agenda is on page 4. It's under item G. It is DP 2012-8, Glynn Creek, Dove Creek, amended. This is a final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan for property located at 1145 Appian Crossing Way. The property is located off of Tates Creek Road. If you're heading out of town, you can take a left on Appian Way and another left onto Appian Crossing. Appian Crossing, if you can put up the first aerial photo for me. Rappian Crossing is a cul-de-sac that is existing here. There's townhouses and an existing access easement that goes all the way down to the end of the property. There is open space and floodplain in this area. The old Jonestown Lane right-of-way used to come up this way and on through. That portion of Jonestown Lane was closed by Urban County Council ordinance when Appian Crossing was constructed and dedicated. the remainder of Jonestown Lane was converted to an emergency access and pedestrian easement down through here. The reason for the emergency access was because there was still a need to serve this area with emergency service until the time that Appian Crossing was constructed and dedicated. Since this is constructed and dedicated now, the use of this as an emergency access is really unnecessary. It is more of a pedestrian access, and we're going to come back to that with the waiver that the applicant is requesting. This development plan is for a three-story senior housing facility. It is proposing 114,000, approximately square feet, three-story building with 120 parking spaces. There is one access point that is proposed off of the public right-of-way for Jones Trail in this area, off of the cul-de-sac in this area. There is another access point to the rear that will connect to the access easement that is constructed there. again on this plan to Appian Crossing is here Jones trail comes up their 24 foot access into the property is here another access point serves as kind of a release valve for for vehicles to come down through the access easement but the primary access for the property is off of Jones trail the subdivision committee at their last meeting recommended postponement there were a number of issues related to improvements to Jones trail as well as the status of Jones Trails a public street. In addition, the property has proposed development in a floodplain area. The staff did receive a revised plan earlier this week, and we've met with the applicant a couple of times, as well as with Traffic Engineering and our Division of Engineering to go over a number of the conditions, and we have a revised handout for you on it. Our first nine conditions, again, are our sign-off conditions. I'll take 10 and 14 kind of together. They are related. The property does have floodplain in this area. There's floodplain here. It does currently encroach into where the building is shown here. They are showing a proposed floodplain that would be revised through a letter of map amendment process through FEMA. There will be a 25-foot floodplain setback off of that. Condition number 10 reads to denote the need for the approval of a special use permit and or a letter of map amendment for garages or parking on lot 7. Again, the special permit use is for any construction that would be in the floodplain. That would be their drive aisles or their parking. And that is handled under Article 19 of our zoning ordinance, and that process is through the Division of Engineering. The letter of map amendment would remove the floodplain from the building and create a setback. They could have parking and drive aisles in that 25-foot floodplain setback. That is allowed. They could not grade or fill in that area. The number 14 is to revise the configuration of the floodplain or to revise the building locations as necessary. This condition was added to the plan to give the applicant some flexibility should they choose to scoot their building over and get out of the floodplain in an effort to go ahead and get this plan certified and move forward. And then once they've handled their FEMA issues, could move it back through a minor amendment at a later time. Number 11 was to denote areas of tree preservation along the north and east property lines. Again, this also goes back to the waiver the applicant is requesting, which we'll get to, but there is an area of trees and tree canopy along the rear that we're asking the applicant to make clear on the plan as an area of tree protection. Number 12 is to clarify off-site improvements to Jones Trail are approved by the adjoining property owner. It's our understanding with the deeds that have been supplied that all of these properties, both here, here, and then this property that is on the development plan, are all owned by the same entity. The applicant has an option on this property. We are looking for something in our files to make sure that this area, the owner, is comfortable and is signing off on improvements to be made to Jonas Trail, which will impact this property owner. It's not uncommon, and the applicant should be able to get us either a letter or the possibility of an additional owner's certification signature on the development plan as possible as well. Head number 13 is provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver to Article 6-8 of the land subdivision regulations. The applicant is requesting a waiver regarding the required half-street section improvements for Jones Trail along its entire frontage. Jones Trail is a remnant rural street that serves four additional properties. Let me switch the sheet for me. Jones Trail comes up this way. There's a property here, here, there's one here, and then in the corner there's a lot that sits right there. Jones Trail, when Jonestown Lane was closed, Jones Trail is the remaining public access. and public street furniture for these lots in the access. Jones Trail terminates at an entrance to private property at that last lot right there. There are no opportunities for connection to another existing public street in the future. As you can see, there's cul-de-sacs up here coming in and coming in, and there's nowhere for this public street to connect in the future. This waiver would relieve the applicant of their obligation to construct approximately 320 feet of widening and improvements along the frontage of Jones Trail. Stated is their desire to protect a significant existing tree line that's on that boundary of the property. And also the limited use of the street and the lack of available connection options do limit the need to improve a public street that's serving and functioning almost as a private access to those properties. In addition, there's also a grade issue at the beginning of the property here, where to do full improvements would require sidewalks and things like that, but that would not necessarily meet our requirements for grade. It could be problematic in terms of access to the property once you flatten out that area. The applicant is proposing a dedication of right-of-way. If we flip the next one. Again, I'll point out to you on the big plan here first. In this area along Jones Trail, there is a slight area of right-of-way that the applicant is proposing to dedicate because currently the pavement is over the property line. There's, and again, the sliver here is difficult to see, but there's a sliver right here coming up adjacent to the tree protection area on the plan. The applicant is proposing to widen approximately the first 60 feet of Jones Trail in order to give adequate access and safe ingress and egress to their development. Again, you'll see a widening proposed right here to get a full 24 feet of pavement into the property so that it is safer for the vehicles to use this as the primary access point. the staff has recommended approval of this requested waiver for the two reasons that are on your staff report that are handed out to you there are four conditions that the staff has recommended the first would be item a is to denote that additional right of way along jones trail shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of a building permit so there will need to be a record plat that dedicates that right of way Item B relates to the safety of the existing emergency access that is still technically allowed for vehicles on it, but staff believes that this would be an appropriate time given that emergency access does not use that route anymore to add bollards or some other access control to the former Jonestown Lane, now the pedestrian emergency access easement on this plan. And item C is the addition of a pedestrian connection to the existing facilities. We've highlighted on here in two locations and read possible places for a sidewalk where grade might allow. We'd like the applicant to work with our pedestrian planner to get an appropriate pedestrian access to serve and allow the residents of this area to get down to it safely. We understand that grade is an issue here for an appropriate sidewalk, but we'd like to see a couple of options explored for some pedestrian access to that area. And the last item is to revise the cross sections CC and DD, which are the two cross sections for Jones Trail, to indicate a minimum of five feet from the curb or the edge of pavement to the property line. Again, that five feet is essentially a utility strip on the property. That is the minimum required under our subdivision regulations, and the staff doesn't see any reason why that five feet could not be met on this property as well. But again, staff did recommend approval and does recommend approval of the waiver as well as the development plan with the revised 14 conditions. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Any commission members with questions? Ms. Phillips? What is the contour interval on this plat? I believe they're two feet, but I'll have to double check. Okay. The minimum in our regs is two feet at the final development plan. By the police, I believe they are at one foot on these. It's a one-foot contour. Okay. So it's a really rolling piece of property. And I wanted to ask, how will we ensure that there won't be any fill to the floodway? Well, the short answer is it appears that there has already been some grading and fill in this area. That's the wrong answer. Well, again, not this applicant, but through previous development of the property, it appears that this area has been flattened to some degree, and that's part of the reason why a letter of map amendment through FEMA is a probable route for how they will go to match the elevations and the contours of this area. But it appears to us as if there has already been some fill through this area. Ms. Phillips, if I could add to your earlier question, This property is not in the floodway. This is the edge of the floodplain. The floodway is further to the west. Still, though, I'm concerned about wetlands, potential issues. We've been bitten before on this issue. So I just want to make sure the applicant is aware that we're aware and do what they can to protect those wetland areas. That process will have to be, they will have to go through all processes required under our ordinance for the special permit used for any additional fill or pavement structures or not structures but pavement and parking in that area. As well as the FEMA LOMA will have to be approved prior to work. Mr. Ellis? Thank you. Chris? Thank you. Chris, as far as number 10, right at the tail end, it's got four garages and or parking, non-lot seven garages. There are no garages proposed in the floodplain. All right. Well, let me say that with exception. The current floodplain does run like this, and underneath the building in the lower level are the garages. However, there cannot be any construction in the current floodplain. That area will have to move. Okay. All right. Thank you. Ms. Copa? You meant the current mapped floodplain. Correct, the current floodplain. But the floodplain is really somewhere else because they put fill in it, right? Yes, that's what the applicant will be filing with them. I didn't catch where the bollards were going. Well, we would leave that up to our sign-off folks to tell us maybe the best place. It could be here. It could be at the bridge. But you're going to keep both of the entrances open? Correct, for pedestrians. Just bollards. Yeah, these entrances will stay open. This is vehicular. This is an access easement for vehicles. At this point. Yeah, I get it now. Okay. How many people will be in this housing? I have to ask the applicant. I'm not sure. Okay. Any other questions from staff? Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett on behalf of the applicant. There are 80 units. It's geared towards senior housing, 55 and older. So I don't know if there will be, you could say there's probably one and a half per unit. So 120 people. Well, Mr. Barrett, I really like 160 people having two full-time entrances and exits for police, emergency vehicles, and fire. It's really nice. Thank you. All right. Sure. And we're in agreement with the revised conditions that you all received through Chris and his presentation. and just ask for your approval of the development plan and the waiver request, and if you've got any further questions, I'll be happy to have an answer. Commission members have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Staff have any other comments? Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this? I'm pretty sure of that. All right, then we'll close the hearing, and I will entertain a motion or discussion. Ms. Beatty? I move that we accept DP-2012-8, Glen Creek, Dove Creek, with the 14 recommendations from staff. Second. Seconded by Mr. O. Please go ahead and vote. Motion is passed. Okay, and I also move that we accept DP-2012-8 Glen Creek, Dove Creek, for the requested waivers, including the staff recommendations of A, B, C, and D. Second. Second by Mr. Owens. Please vote. The motion is passed. The last item, I believe, on our agenda is performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the release and call of bonds dated February 9, 2012, as presented. Second by Ms. Plain. Second. Please vote. And the motion has passed as well. Anyone have any commission items or staff items? Commissioner Mascopo. This is the new issue of International Traveler, National Geographic Traveler, which is an international travel magazine. and on page, it features traveling to Cuba, and on page 39, Lexington is mentioned as a great place to bring your kids. Besides the countryside, there's the Arboretum, the Horse Park, the Keeneland Racecourse, the Explorium, and Wallace Station to have lunch. Big time. Thank you very much, Ms. Covey. Ms. Wilson. I'd like to congratulate you, Derek, on your appointment. I don't exactly know what the title is, but I'm looking forward to you serving in your new capacity. I think they chose well. I appreciate that. I'd really love to have a motion for adjournment, though, for anyone else. So moved. All right. Thank you.