Music Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I think we're just a little bit after 1.30. We'll call this meeting to order. And we're going to take one thing out of order as far as the agenda is concerned. We have the pleasure and distinction of honoring one of our colleagues today who, I must say, has taken the theme song of the Jeffersons to new levels as far as moving on up. He's been on the commission. he was chair for a very brief time before becoming the commissioner of planning. So if I could, I'll ask everybody to come down front. And Dr. Paulson, Commissioner Paulson, to come forward. Let me read this, if I may. whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, acknowledge the resignation of Dr. Derek Paulson from the Planning Commission in order to accept the position of Commissioner of the Department of Planning, Preservation, and Development, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Dr. Paulson for his valuable service to this commission from July 7, 2009 to February 17, 2012, having served on the Commission's subdivision committee and also having served as chair of the Commission by unanimous vote of his peers. And whereas Dr. Paulson has been influential in the formation of the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan, the Central Sector and the East End Small Area Plans, the Red Mile Development Plan, the Housing Market Study, the non-residential infill and redevelopment study, and the tax amendments encouraging and facilitating infill and redevelopment. And whereas Dr. Paulson has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Lexington Fayette County, as reflected in his decisions regarding land use and development, and whereas although the service contributed by Dr. Paulson as a Planning Commission member will be greatly missed, the Commission and staff look forward to his continued interaction and guidance as Commissioner of the Department of Planning, Preservation, and Development. Now, therefore, be it resolved, we, the members of the Commission and staff, do hereby express our gratitude to Dr. Paulson for his service to this Commission and to the citizens of the Lexington-Fayette County. And we, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, do hereby wish for Dr. Paulson much happiness and continued success, and ask that he continue to provide valuable guidance, and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Dr. Paulson and also spread upon the minute book of this body, dated at Lexington, Kentucky, May 10, 2012. Thank you. I'm going to keep this real short because it's a Thursday that might get you guys out quickly. I truly appreciate this, and I'm not sure which is a tougher job, the one I have now or the one that you guys have now. I get to do the back scene stuff a lot of times, but you guys get to be the front and center on a lot of really tough decisions. And I think that helps where I am now, knowing what you guys have to deal with. So I appreciate your thanks, and I thank you guys for everything that you guys are continuing to do, especially as we go forward with CompLan. So I'm going to say no more words. I'm just going to shake hands and get out of here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and we welcome her. Going back to the agenda, trying to maintain the order as written now, approval of minutes, minutes of April 12, 2012, has been sent to you by email. and if we're ready I'll ask for approval of those minutes. Mr. Chairman. Yes, I move approval of the minutes of April 12, 2012. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the minutes of April 12, 2012. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Are there any postponements or withdrawals from the agenda today? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Page 1, Item 1, Plan 2003-209P Masterson Hills and Masterson Station Unit 10 request a one-month postponement. Thank you. Mr. Sally, what date would that be? Mr. Chairman, your date meeting in June is the 14th. for subdivision of the own plan items. Thank you. Anyone in the audience that wish to speak in regards to this postponement of this plan? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2003-209P. Thank you, Mr. Brewer. Motion's been made for postponement. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement. Please vote when he comes on the screen. Motion for postponement has been granted. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, I would ask that we sound the possible consent agenda with Mr. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to report that most of your agenda items do qualify for consideration on your consent agenda at this time. There are three final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee, the first of which that appears on the consent agenda is page 2, item B, plan 2012-31F, an amended final record plat for Angliana Avenue or Trinitas Housing Project located at 497 Angliana Avenue. The next item on your meeting agenda on page 2, item C, is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2012-32F, an amended final record plat for Lockinger Estates, also known as Maple Ridge, Unit 1A, Section 1. Section, pardon me, Unit 1B of that same subdivision is also on your consent agenda. It is the next item on your meeting agenda appearing on page 3, item D. Plan 2012-33F, Lockinger Estates, Maple Ridge, Unit 1B, Section 1, amended. Both of these plats are for property located at 651 Childsburg Road. In addition, there are six development plans that appear on your consent agenda. The first appearing on page 4, item A of your regular meeting agenda, DP 2012-23, an amended final development plan, and also a portion being a preliminary development plan for the George West Estate property, also known as the Howard property, located at 4538, 4568, and 4578 Georgetown Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 4, item B, DP2012-25, an amended final development plan for the Scott Street lofts located at 341 Scott Street. The next item on your consent agenda is page 5, item C of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-26, an amended final development plan for Lakeview Estates, Unit 2, Block J. This involves property 515 Lake Tower Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda also appears on the consent agenda, page 5, item D, DP 2012-27, an amended final development plan for the Hope Center Apartments located at 1518 Versailles Road. On page 5, item E of your agenda, DP 2012-28, the Apiary Property, LLC, this is a final development plan at 218 Jefferson Street. We would note for the record this plan requires an affidavit. The affidavit and photographic evidence of the sign have been submitted to the staff, so it is eligible for your consent agenda. The final item on the consent agenda appears on page 5, item F, DP 2012-29, an amended final development plan for Ellerslie Place, Lot 2, also known as Midland Crossing, located at 225 Walton Avenue. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Commission can consider approval of these items as recommended by your subdivision committee on the consent agenda unless a member of the Commission or a member of the audience would ask for one of these items to be removed for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone from the audience wish to pull one of these from the consent agenda and to be heard? Anyone from the Commission wish to hear one of these that's on the consent agenda? If not, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda as read. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda that is presented to us on the TAN paper. Thank you. Motion has been made by Mr. Penn and seconded by Ms. Spadey for approval of the consent agenda. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. I think our first item to hear is on page 2, Final Subdivision Plan 2A, Plan 2012-30F, wherever part. And we'll give them a couple of minutes to set up. As they are setting up, you do have a memorandum for the release and call of bonds before you, dated May 10, 2012. Please take a look at those and I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the release and call of bonds. Thank you. Motion's been made for the approval of the release and call of bonds. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Motion's made by Mr. Craven, seconded by Ms. Phillips, for the approval of the release and call of bonds dated May 10, 2012. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. As you stated, our plan is on page two, but since the subdivision committee meeting, they have brought in a new plan, and we have revised conditions located on a brown sheet of paper. It is Plan 2012-30F, River Park Subdivision Unit 3D, Section 2, Lot 1A, amended. The property is located at 3701 Trent Circle. We were talking about Trent Circle and Trent Boulevard. I'm sorry. and this was the corner. They have a duplex currently on the property and they're wanting to subdivide this one lot to be able to create another duplex, another building on this lot closest to the circle. After reviewing the revised plan and the conditions that we have, we've now reduced to 14. We have the first seven conditions, which are our typical sign-offs, engineering traffic, building inspection, addressing, urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality, addition of utilities. We also ask for addition of adjacent property zoning information because we're going from an R4 zone to a single-family zone to the rear. Identify all boundary and line bearings and degrees, minutes, and seconds. Correct identity of all easements. There are several easements located in the rear portion of the property that are not currently labeled. Identify location of permanent controls. Addition of applicable engineering and survey certification to the approval of the Division of Engineering. Denote driveway location to the approval of Division of Traffic Engineering. This was discussed at our subdivision committee meeting with the addition of this new townhome. We were asked to have the location of the driveways denoted so that we can make sure that this meets our setback and there's no problems with backing out onto the street. We also discussed at our subdivision committee meeting the building line setback. setback, they were asking for 10 feet, but after review with the staff in traffic engineering, we were asking for 20. But after review with the plan that they submitted showing the building located on the property, which is on the overhead, right now it's kind of faint. With their drawing showing the additional building, after review, we found that the building line could be set at 19 feet and still meet the averaging that is required. It can encroach over the building line, but they can still meet the averaging for that. So at this current time, condition number 14 is locate and label 19-foot building line setback on Trent Boulevard. With that, the staff recommends approval. If you have any other questions. Any questions from the Commission? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Phillips. Oops. Mr. Burke. A question that was in the subdivision committee meeting the other day about the other buildings. The adjacent property. I'm sorry. Yeah. Across the street on Trent Boulevard, they have a townhome community, and the building line set back on that townhome is 10 feet because of the zone. and then on the same side of the Trent Boulevard is the duplexes. Everything is 30 feet. I have final record plots showing 30 feet all the way down Trent Boulevard, both directions. So just across the street is the only setback at 10, and the majority of the others, they're all 30-foot setbacks. And that's what the original plan had was a 30-foot setback. They were wanting to reduce that building line so he could add the additional townhome. So the one house or duplex that's directly across Trent Circle and on the other corner, is it 30 feet? Yes, sir. And then the one on down, I don't know what the next street is. The townhome in question is located right here on the corner of Trent Circle on Trent Boulevard. across the street is a townhome development. They have recorded a 10-foot setback from the street on this side. The rest of the property and the record plots that I found heading down Trent Boulevard and then down the other direction all had a 30-foot setback. that's how this corner here was originally platted with a 30-foot setback. So in our traffic, people, I guess, have looked at this revised plan, and they don't see any issues with that because I know it's in a curve is my concern. Right. It looks somewhat of a curve. This was discussed at the subdivision committee meeting, and it was mentioned that the 20-foot setback would meet their approval. But now we're going to be less than that, though, right? 19 feet. Yeah. Okay. I'd point out the building location won't change on this drawing, which does show the site triangles. Just the plaited building line would change by one foot closer to the street. The building is 24 feet in width. Any other questions? Mr. Berkley? Ms. Phillips? Cheryl, the notes here about the land subdivision and the easements, was the original design of this done without the benefit of a surveyor? Is that what may have happened? Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. The applicant, I do not know whether he's a surveyor or not, but it was originally drawn by him. And the certifications were missing, so we didn't know how to answer those. They were missing several different certifications on the first application. application my my only concern is and i know i realize that you know it's expensive to hire surveyor but the request is for a final development plan and we're still not sure of even the final record plaque and the um this is a subdivision of one lot into two and all the improvements have already been um in installed at this time so it's a matter of just subdividing one piece of property so that they can create a second home and they'll have to have a sewer tap out to the street. That would be the only other improvement because all the other improvements have already been added. Well, my concern is just we need to be absolutely confident where that line is. Right. It appears that a surveyor hasn't visited the site and the request is for a final. They'll have to have a surveyor sign off for this. And if any of the meets bounds dimensions change, then it will have to come back to us for a revised? No, they'll just have to show us what they are, the meets and bounds are, and have it correct when they... Okay, because we don't know what the meets and bounds are at this point. Well, on the final plan that we have, this is a supplement that doesn't have the meets and bounds on it, but the plan that I have up here on the board, that does have the meets and bounds. They're just not correct the way they are written. They only show the degrees, and they don't show the minutes and seconds, so we were wanting to make sure that we have the two bearings and distances on the property. How common is this that we get these kinds of, I've been here for a little bit, but I haven't seen this before. Yeah, I mean, it just makes me concerned when we're surveying, we're subdividing land and we don't have the benefit of a surveyor's expertise involved. Right. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions? Okay. If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Your name, sir? My name is Uri Redick. Thank you, Mr. Redick. I'm the applicant. I agree with all of the conditions and ask for approval. Okay. Any questions? Ms. Kupman? Yes. I'm confused. 1A and 1B are duplexes that share a common wall. Yes. Yet we just heard information saying that there's going to be a townhome. What exactly are you going to build at lot 1? Is it going to be a duplex? Is it going to have a common wall with 1A? It will have a common wall with 1A. It's just a one-single-family townhome, pretty much. So then the building that goes on lot one is going to be for just one family, not a duplex. Exactly, yes. So there will be one driveway. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion amongst the Commission members and or a motion. Mr. Chairman, may I ask him one more question? Yes, sir, you may. Are these lots going to be platted so they can be sold separately? Lots, they are right now. Yes. The final answer is yes, but right now they are plotted as separately. They are two different titles, not titles, but they are plotted the way that they can be sold separately, even though it's a duplex property. And the plan is to subdivide one of the properties into properties. Into two, right? Yes. So you have three separate logs. Exactly. And this is a final development plan? Subdivision. Subdivision. Subdivision. Okay. Yes, Ms. Phillips. Another question. Cheryl, the reason this is a final is because it's just a one-lot division? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll go back to the part that, as far as this part of the hearing is closed and discussion among commission members and or motion if you're ready. Mr. Berkeley? I just have, I guess, a concern about the site visibility as well as everything else being 30 foot along the way. That was the way it was laid out. And are we going to be setting a precedence by doing this? That's kind of my concerns. Can I say something to someone else? Mr. Carter. My name is Matt Carter. I'm with Vision Engineering, and I'm representing Mr. Raddick on this. As far as site distance, what the zoning requires is at the intersecting streets, 15 feet back from the intersecting curb lines, you have to have a sight distance of 300 feet. So what's shown up here, we've gone back to the point where your sight distance is obstructed by the corner of the house. And do you have a pointer? Right here, this is from here to here is 15 feet, and that's what's required by zoning. From here to here. We can't see it up on the screen, Matt. It's under Boulevard. Okay. Okay. From here to here, can you see this? My hand's shaky, but I can't hold any more steel. That's 30, how many feet? 34 feet. So if you come back 34 feet and look down past the house, down Trent Boulevard, there's 34 feet back where vehicles can be stacking that's unobstructed, looking back that 300-foot distance. What about coming the other way, though? Coming the other way, well, I mean... Out of a curve, right? You're talking about coming down Trent Boulevard? Yes. Well, the same thing. When you come back 300 feet from the intersection, you're going to see a vehicle back here 30 feet. And what's required is, I mean, he's meeting the requirements, minimum requirements. He's exceeding the minimum requirements. He's doubled the minimum requirements. Okay, thank you. Ms. Copeland? The present duplexes that are on 1A and 1B are brick veneer, I think. You're going to put brick veneer on this? That's the plan, yes. Just match the existing building pretty much. Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I will say the motion can be one of many. Postponement or motion to approve or motion to disapprove. I'll make a motion. Mr. Cravens. I move approval of Plan 2012-30, the amended plan, amended recommendations. Okay. A motion has been made for approval of the plan with the 14 conditions, the revised plan. Is there a second? Yes. A motion has been made by Mr. Craven, seconded by Ms. Copeland for approval. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I believe, Hamburg Place Mall, Plan 2012-17-F. I will ask you to take note. This is a plan that we have approved, and they are presenting a waiver request to us now. And I think we have that information on the brown sheet. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page 3. It is Plan 2012-17F, Hamburg Place Mall, Unit 1, Parcel 2, Lot 4. As your chairman just explained, this is a plan that was approved by you, this body, at its April 12, 2012 meeting. Again, this is a final record plat that creates Outlot 4 out in the Hamburg development. Here we have Pink Pigeon Parkway, Alice Sheba. This is Man of War. And we have Vendor Way and Paul Jones Way, Sir Barton Way, all the road system in this area of Hamburg. This is the Myers development anchor part of Hamburg. That's, in essence, what you're looking at here with some outlots. Myers in their parking lot, and down in this way you have some additional outlot development along Peak Pigeon. The proposal, you may recall, you approved the development plan for this property at that last meeting as well. It's for the Frisch's restaurant, and you approved this record plan. The waiver that you have before you today is to waive the construction of the sanitary sewer line to this lot prior to the recording of the lot. It's a waiver of substantial completion. Our regs require that all utilities, sewers, everything be present to a lot when it is legally created and recorded. However, they have requested a waiver of that condition to, one, allow them to transfer the property, and two, and I think as important, is to coordinate the construction of this sanitary sewer with the site development. Here is the existing line. It runs through this easement across Ali Sheba, terminates in this location. This is approximately 300 feet. It's a 25-foot easement. It's 12 feet deep. The deeper you go, the wider the easement becomes. It is an active parking lot, so the challenge that is facing the developer of Frisch's is, in fact, the installation of this line, managing the traffic, dealing with the parking, and that sort of thing. It has been reviewed by your staff. We have discussed it at length with the Division of Engineering, and we are recommending approval subject to some condition, and you will find that on your report that was handed out and should be at your seats. You have two of them, so this is the one, of course, for Hamburg. Same color sheets, but it's for Hamburg. The condition is that they denote that no certificate of occupancy for lot four shall be issued until the sewer line, extension, and manhole are constructed in compliance with the engineering manuals and accepted by the Division of Engineering. And, in fact, our regs prevent the issuance of a certificate of occupancy until all utilities are provided to a site. So they can't occupy the building until all this is constructed. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Martin, worst case scenario, if we okay this waiver, how can we get between a rock and a hard place in this? They are going to have to bond this at 100% of the estimated cost. So worst case scenario is the city would call that bond and build the sewer line. Okay, so we wouldn't just be stuck? Oh, no, ma'am. No, ma'am. They will be required to bond it. In fact, a certification on the record plan states that our city engineer signs, states that they've received the bond. What if they build or develop the site in such a way that we can't put the sewer, or they can't put the sewer where we agreed to put it? They would have to come back and amend their plan and indicate the new location and where they were going to put the sewer. Okay. Mr. Penn Mr. Martin, you indicated that on Pink Pigeon Parkway there would be more outlots There are already outlots across Pink Pigeon But on the lower side of that big development plan that we're talking about out parcel on Are there outlots on that parcel other than the Frisch's? No, sir. The plant that you see before you today creates the lots that you see before you today There would have to be further lots created Okay. So if further lots were created on that plat, would we have to grant the same waivers? Not necessarily, no, sir. They would have to sewer those lots. And if they wanted to ask permission for you to grant them a waiver, they could. Have we done this in the past? We have granted several waivers, yes, sir, of the sewer line. Providence Parkway, the development out there, comes to mind. We had two in Hamburg, one for the daycare facility and then one for the college, Indiana College. All those were granted very similar waivers. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, Mr. Barrett, I think, leading the charge for the applicant. Tony Barrett on behalf of Frisch's Restaurant, saying we're in agreement with the condition of adding that note. We would expect that. We're not going to open up a restaurant without having sanitary sewer service. You asked what's the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is Frisch's owns a lot, but they can't have a restaurant from their perspective. So they're going to do everything in their power to get the sewer to the restaurant, absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Any questions for Mr. Barrett? Yes, Ms. Copeland? Ms. Barrett, what's the impact on the lot next to it where the orange line is? I mean, you're disturbing. That lot is no longer undeveloped. This is the, this is, Myers is the seller, and that's the Myers parking lot, so they're party to the sale. So it's in their interest that they enable us to build the sewer line across their property, otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell the property. Well, does this stop them from selling and developing underneath that, on top of that sewer line? Well, it's a parking lot now, so it will continue to be a parking lot, but they would not be able to build a structure over top of that. But that's part of the arrangement for selling the track. Any other questions for Mr. Barrett? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any other discussion and or motion. Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve Plan 2012-17F, Hamburg Place Mall Unit 1, Parcel 2, Lot 4, with the noted staff conditions and the additional note. Waiver? Yes. Grant of waiver. Grant of waiver with the reasons. We need to recognize the reasons for the waiver. The reasons stated. Thank you. The motion has been made for approval of the plan waiver, 2000F-17F, for the reasons stated. Is there a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Motion passes. Our next, moving to page 4. At the top of the page, Plan 2012-35L. Here we do have a plan with a waiver. that I guess Mr. Martin will be presenting as well. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, on the top of page four is the next plan on your agenda. It is plan 2012-35F, Newtown Springs, Unit 2A, Lot 15 as amended. This is a record plat that was filed for your approval that is located out in the Newtown Springs development on the north end of town off of Newtown would be in this direction, Newtown Pike. Citation runs in this direction. You may recall the development plan you approved for the assisted living and the care facility on this acreage and the extensive discussion about the extension of citation here to serve the property. This is the plat that they are filing to actually create the five acres where the development will take place. Here we have Silver Springs Drive. It is constructed in this location, Dawson Springs and Saunders Springs. or at this location, Asbury Lane will be extended. As you may recall, it's not extended across this frontage at this time, but will be. Again, Citation Boulevard and Asbury will be built by the Lexington-Phayette Urban County Government per a third-party agreement. This development did agree, and again, I want to build an extension, a half section of citation, as you may recall, to this location to serve the development. The record plat was reviewed, recommended for approval by your subdivision committee, subject to our standard sign-off conditions of the engineering, traffic, building inspection, addressing the urban forester, addition of utility and street light easements as required, There are several cleanup conditions on this plat. A correction of adjoining property cabinet slide information. The adjoining property across Silver Springs is on two different cabinets and slides. It's just a simple correction. The addition of D-book cabinet and slide information for the Palumbo property tract, the large tract is what we're referring to in this case. The addition of street trees per lot 16, that's the small lot that you see across the street. Certification of the final development plan, you have approved the final development plan. It has not yet been certified. We would like to have that to be certified prior to certifying and recording this plan. The addition of a Citation Boulevard temporary easement note, This is a note that has been carried on plats over time that refers to Citation Boulevard temporary easement that borders all the properties. It will go away once Citation is built, and we just like to have that note carried forward because it gives a clear time limit. When it's built, it goes away, and it establishes that. We want to clarify or denote that Lot 16 is not subject to this final development or the final development plan. There is a note on this plan as required stating that this property shall be developed in accordance with the approved development plan. That is lot 15. That's the assisted living facility. Lot 16 was developed as part of a preliminary subdivision plan. It is a single family lot and we do not want someone to have to amend a final development plan because they're going to put a shed in their backyard. So we just want that cleared up for any future property owner. This plan is a late plan. So condition 14 states review by the technical committee prior to certification. This plan was brought as a staff item to the technical committee, but they did not act on it because it was a late plan. We just wanted at the applicant's request to inform them that it had come in a little early, that it was on plan tracker, and to give them a heads up on this particular plan. Condition 15 is a waiver request. It is the exact same request of the exact same requirements that you just approved on Hamburg. It's substantial completion. the existing sewer in this area comes down through here through an easement across lot 16 the applicant is going to have to extend that sewer across the frontage of lot 16 along dawson springs there's a it's well within the the building line the front yard setback so there's no conflict with the building line or the buildable area they're going to have to extend it across and the public sewer will terminate in an easement at this location that will then allow the development to tap in with their lateral to the public sewer. They, too, wish to coordinate the development of the site and this particular facility with these off-site improvements, the sewer improvements. Staff has reviewed this. We have discussed it at length with engineering as well. It is only about 178 feet or so of sewer, unlike the 300 feet on the previous plan. But we are recommending approval, and it is subject to the same condition that they denote that no certificate of occupancy will be awarded until that line is approved. I would add that you may recall on the development plan there are considerable restrictions on the property, including a certificate of occupancy restriction until they complete the citation extension to serve the property as well. So staff is very confident that the public is protected in this situation. Again, your subdivision committee is recommending approval of this, and your staff is recommending approval of the waiver. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Tuttle from Strand Associates. We are in agreement with the conditions. I will note, just for your information, that there are no houses built across the street from this subdivision, so the lot we're putting the sewer in on is a vacant lot, which there's nothing to be disturbed there except dirt. and hopefully no rock. Thank you. Any questions, Ms. Tuttle? If not, I would ask if there's anyone in the audience that wish to speak on this plan. I have one more thing. Since it has been seen by the technical committee, we would appreciate a waiver of review by the technical committee. We talked about this at subdivision committee. If it's not your pleasure, I understand. They've seen it. I don't have anything to add to them, and if you so desire, I'd appreciate it, but it's not going to fall on my sword over it. Thank you. I'll go back to my question. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, thank you, Ms. Tuttle. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from the Commission members and or motion. Yes, Ms. Covenan. Oh, Mr. Penn's in front of me. I'll take Mr. Penn first, then. I think we should not set precedent by skipping technical. It should go for technical. They can bow to each other and it'll be over. And if providing Mr. Penn doesn't have something great. Okay, then I would like to make a motion. unless somebody else has got something to say. If there's no other questions, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2012-35F, Newtown Springs Unit 2A, Lot 15, and then the development plan with the 15 conditions as stated. Okay. Let me ask, this does include the waiver with the reasons listed on the waiver? Yes, it includes the waiver, very much so. With the reasons? Yes. We need the sewer. Okay. Mr. Penn? Okay. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2012-35F with the waiver, with the two reasons listed. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. I think our next plan is page 6, DP 2007-94. This is a re-approval. Is Chris going to walk us through this, Mr. Taylor? Yes. I will. Thank you, sir. Last plan on your agenda today is on page 6, item G, DP 2007-94, so Beaumont Farm Unit 10, the B6P area amended. This plan was last approved by the Planning Commission in August of 2007, subject to the 18 conditions. As noted on your agenda with additional conditions under the big box guidelines, The applicant has built the majority of the plan, which was to include the new Kroger store here, as well as this bank of buildings. This plan has to be, all the buildings have to have building permits pulled on it within five years of the Planning Commission's action. That time is just about over, and these three buildings have not had permits pulled on them yet, and they are seeking to re-approve the plan to give them another five years to build what is approximately 23,000 square feet of buildings. The plan was approved, as I said, and certified subject to those 18 conditions, so the plan that you see has addressed those 18 conditions and is seeking re-approval of the exact same plan. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Any questions from Mr. Taylor? I've got one, Mike. Yes, sir. subject to the 18 conditions and then the big box design guideline there, A through G. Was that part of the original? It was, and there are still some elements of the big box guidelines down in this area that haven't been, I don't believe, have been built fully. So those conditions all still apply. But the big box portion of the main store and the parking lot improvements, to my knowledge, have all been done. the applicant can address about the lower portion where they've not pulled permits on the buildings yet. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Copeland. What about park and ride? Do they participate in the park and ride program under big box? I don't believe so. This was done prior to the discussion we had at another location. Well, shouldn't we update that? You have that option to discuss it, yes. we have not asked our MPO folks on this re-approval to do so but you certainly can discuss that if you wish well it wouldn't be an option to postpone this talk to them about it and see if we can get some park and ride here before we let it go further what do you think Chris I think that's a possibility if that's the Commission's wish. We would be glad to facilitate that if that's part of the Commission's action. Okay. Let me ask you this, Chris. Did you say the park and ride concept and big box connections had not? We had an amendment to our big box guidelines to incorporate park and ride options and to give parking reductions. I believe that was after the 2007 amendment of this plan. So this plan, in its initial review, that wasn't a part of it, to my recollection. Okay. It probably wasn't even thought off at that time. Okay. I'm not saying that it's mandatory, but as long as they're updating, we ought to update too and at least throw it out on the table and have a discussion about it before it goes farther. Let's see what the applicant has to say. My name is Bob Cornett with the Roberts Group representing Kroger. We're not really updating anything. We just asked to have the time extended on the existing development plan. We complied with all of the 18 requirements to get the plan certified or we wouldn't have built the building. The only thing we're asking to do is to give us a little more time. The economy just doesn't support additional retail space. Until we lease the existing vacant croaker store, there's no economical impact to build a new gas station. So all we're doing is asking for five years. And as far as going up and updating stuff to code, I can't answer that. This was supposed to be a consent agenda since it was just a re-approval. At least that was my understanding when I came down here. So I can't answer whether Crowder would agree to a park and ride, and I just don't feel like it's even fair to ask him to upgrade it at this point. Go ahead. I think, and Mr. Selle, you can correct me if I'm wrong, as far as the consent agenda had to be within three years. Is that what we discussed earlier? Your bylaw on re-approval or extension is only for a plan that you've seen within a three-year period. Okay. Yeah, I wasn't aware of that. I just knew about the five years of commission action. Okay. All right, then. Any other questions from the commission? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? We're running out of participants out there. Okay. Anything to add, sir? Not at this point? I probably should stop where I am. Thank you, sir. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for additional discussion from the Commission members and or motion. Ms. Beatty, I'm sorry. I would just like some explanation from the staff or from Commission members in the past. When we've had a request for an extension such as this, and then I hear the applicant say it's not fair to go back and ask for any quote updates, how have we dealt with that in the past when we're extending? Is it just looking at what was currently there and approving it, or do we go back and ask for things that we have now updated or considered? Well, Mr. Sally, I'll add to this if I'm incorrect if there's more needs to be said, but I know part of the reason the 36-month portion of the bylaws was added was, I think, I believe Ms. Phillips had a concern at the time about the consent agenda that, as regulations change over time, that plans that come in for reapproval have opportunities to meet new requirements and to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and so not be on the consent agenda. These conditions related to the park and ride and incentive, it was essentially an incentive to the big box guideline, is not necessarily an additional regulation but an incentive to the big box guideline. It's not a requirement that they add park and ride facilities. It's just simply an incentive as an element of the park and ride. So I don't know in this case that it's an additional regulation that we've added since that time, But that's the reason we add the 36-month period to the bylaw was to give those new regulations a chance to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for plans that come in for reapproval. Does that sort of answer your question? Mm-hmm. Okay. The only thing I would add to Mr. Taylor's remarks, which I all agree with, the big box store on this plan has already been built. And that's really what's unusual about this one. There is no amendment proposed at all to the big box store that the guidelines apply to. The other buildings are much smaller. Ms. Phillips. Chris, can I put you on the spot? Yeah. I've never done that before. It's the first time. Are you sure? Would there be an advantage to these 23,000 square feet? It's a 10,000 square foot building and a 12,000 square foot building and then a small 1,000 square foot portion for the gas station. Would there be an advantage to at least our continuing this to ask the question because it could potentially save this developer some parking spaces, which asphalt coverage and I'm asking kind of looking at you as well as the developer. I'll let the applicant address that. Well, I think what you're saying is go ahead and do the park and ride, reduce your parking requirements. And is that what you're referring to? Well, I'm not necessarily saying agree today to the park and ride, But at least explore the question, because it could relieve you of some surface parking requirements by offering that up. And it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be used as a park and ride. I mean, that's a demand-based. Well, usually when you do the park and ride, you reduce the required number of parking spaces. This mass field is already constructed. This massive field is already constructed. This little shop would be isolated if we reduced any parking. There wouldn't be parking for the shop. So that really wouldn't be a benefit to this particular one. Depending upon what this use might end up, it could be the same thing. I don't see that it's a benefit, but I understand what you're saying. If I need to reduce the parking spaces, I will take advantage of every reduction benefit available. Well, and I recognize what you're saying, that the vast, vast majority of spaces have already been constructed. They've already. But if there is a way that we could save just or so spaces, that might be advantageous to the developer. The last condition on the big box guidelines was to locate a transit shelter to the approval of LexTran. So there was some dialogue that took place in 2007 on this. So there are transit facilities in place. There may not be designated park and ride spaces on the plan. But Lex Tran has the ability always to dialogue with the places where they have their shelters already in place because agreements exist for those shelters to work on and dialogue on additional parking facilities to designate the parking lot if they wish. Those opportunities are always available. Yes, sir, Mr. Cravens. Chris, when they build one of those other three buildings there, won't they bring a development plan back in once they nail that down? If this plan is certified and the plans they bring in for the existing buildings are within the footprints that are approved here and this plan is certified, they do not need to come back with another final development plan. But if they deviate outside of the approved building locations, if something final comes in and the configuration is different, they'll be back. Yeah, I mean, they may change some of that. So we might see it again. We may very well. It could be a minor amendment, though, as well. Ms. Phillips? I was just going to echo what Mike said, that we would potentially have an opportunity that if there was successful dialogue or some change, then we wouldn't have the opportunity to review it again. So I have no problems with it then. Any other discussion? Personally, two comments from me. I think what Ms. Copeland is going after is a good idea. and could benefit immensely, but by the same token, the big box element of this has been developed and built. The parking lot is still, if I understand everything correctly, is still voluntary. It's an incentive, but it is voluntary. So I think discussion can continue later and hopefully would, given the opportunity. But I think we'll move forward with this, in my opinion, at this time. That's my two cents worth. Ms. Copeland? Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2007-94 with all of the notes on it for reapproval. I'll second. Thank you. The motion's been made by Ms. Copeland and seconded by Mr. Brewer for approval with the 18 conditions and if I'm counting right, seven follow-up or additional conditions. so if there's no further discussion please vote when it comes up on your screen thank you motion passes I think we're on to the last page now we've dispensed of everything else audience items other commission items and or our next meeting is a work session next week at 1.30 here in the Council Chambers. I presume that's correct, Mr. King? That's correct. Okay. Yes, sir. Yes. Some of you all remember Jim Mahan, who was on our planning commission. He's in Markey Cancer Center with acute leukemia. Keep him in your thoughts and prayers, and it's treatable. Hopefully we can get it in, what do you call it, remission. But I wanted you to know, especially the staff that worked with him, and some of us on the commission remember him. But that's where he is right now. He was there Sunday. We'll be there for two weeks, and then we'll evaluate from there. Is there a room over there? Yes. Does he have a room? He's in the hospital. Yes. Yes, he's in the market cancer. He's in the hospital. Yeah. Yes. So, as Mr. Penn said, thoughts and prayers go to the Mahan family. I would take note that I think some of y'all may have known it, may not have. Jim Duncan was out of work for, what, a week, I guess, two weeks, actually, with a severe illness. But I did see him today. He's happy to be back and working on our comprehensive plan. and will be joining us, I'm sure, next week. So any other business? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Thank you. As clean and shining black as night My mother went to answer You know that you're so fine Now I could understand Your tears and your shame She called you boy instead of your name When she wouldn't let you inside