Music Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Once again, I've got two clocks out of three that says it's 1.30, so we'll get this started. Good afternoon, and the first order on the agenda would be the approval of minutes for May 10th. I believe the commission members did receive a corrected version by e-mail. If there are no other changes, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the minutes of May 10, 2012. Please vote. Motion passes. Next, I would ask for any postponements or withdrawals at this time from the agenda. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 9. Item 4, the Platte Revocation A, Plan 2003-232C, Richmond Estates, Betsy Toye Hall property. Billy Van Pelt of the Rural Land Management Board has asked us to postpone that a month, and we've agreed to that. So we'll request a postponement from you all for one month. Okay, thank you. Mr. Salley, do you have a date? Yes, sir. Your meeting in July for subdivision and development plans is the 12th, July 12th. Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the audience that is here to speak on this or would speak on the postponement itself? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of Plan 2003-232C to the July 12th meeting. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement. Please vote when he comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Are there any other requests for postponement? Mr. Cayley, good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Page 1, your first item, Plan 2003-209P, Masterson Hills and Masterson Station, Unit 10, request a one-month postponement to the July 12th hearing. Thank you. Anyone in the audience that wish to speak on this request for postponement? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, move postponement of 2003-209-P until July 12th. Thank you. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement. So please vote when this comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Kaling. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, I would ask Mr. Salley to take us through the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Although you have a lengthy agenda this afternoon, your consent agenda is also lengthy, which is very pleasing. We, at this time, can review those items on your consent agenda. The first number of subdivision plans on your meeting agenda, beginning on page 2, are also listed on your consent agenda. These are plans that have been recommended for approval or for re-approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on page 2, item A. It's plan 2012-40F, a final record plat for Masterson Station Unit 10G. This involves property located on Eminent Drive. A number of plats, item B, C, D, and E, on pages 2 and 3 of your meeting agenda, are for the reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1A. All of these plats for 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D are on your consent agenda. Page 2, item B, Plan 2009-25F, reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1A. Page 2, Item C, Plan 2009-26F for the reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1B Page 3, Item D, for Plan 2009-27F, the reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1C And finally, on Page 3, Item E, Plan 2009-28F, the reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1D These four plans have been recommended for re-approval by your subdivision committee with some slight modifications to the conditions. These all involve property at 3280 Hatfield Lane. There are two other plats that appear on your consent agenda, page 3, item F, for plan 2012-51F, for the Glen at Lockdale, located at 3600 and 3652 Winthrop Drive. The final plat on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda, appearing on page 4, item G, Plan 2012-53F, Lakeview Estates, Lot 2, Tract A, involving property located at 1540 New Circle Road. In addition, there are two other final subdivision plans that have been recommended for approval of a one-year extension by your planning staff that appear on the consent agenda. The first is on page 6, item K, plan 2011-68F for the Richardson property, unit 5, section 4, located on Hannah Todd Place. In addition, the next item on your meeting agenda on page 7, item L, plan 2011-84F, the Denton Farm Incorporated, unit 3, section A, lot 27 amended. This is also known as the Ellerslie at DeLong subdivision, located at 122 Summersley Place. In addition, there are three development plans appearing on your consent agenda. These have been recommended for approval or for re-approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 7, item B of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-36, an amended final development plan for the blend at Lockdale Unit 4. This is for property on Golden Trophy Trail. On page 8, item D, DP 2012-38, a final development plan for Bluegrass Business Park, also known as Pemberton Farm, lot 4, is on your consent agenda. This is for property at 2333 Innovation Drive. The final item on your consent agenda appears on page 9, Item F of your meeting agenda for DP 2011-38, Amendment No. 5 to the final development plan for Pinnacle Lock 1, located at 1099 Duval Street. Mr. Chairman, at this time the Commission could consider approval of all the consent agenda items as recommended unless a member of the Commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would wish to have one of these items removed for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Selle. Any member of the Commission or anyone in the audience wish to remove one of these items? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, staff, my name is Mike Robbins, and I'm here representing Foster Rowland, Incorporated, and our client, Freedom Dodge. I'd like to direct your attention to page number four, item G. I would like to request that this item be heard so that I might request that one of the conditions be removed. Okay, thank you. We'll remove that from the consent agenda. Any others? Anyone else that wish to remove one of these items from the consent agenda? If not, I will entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda as read with the exception of Plan 2012-53F, Lakeview Estates. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda with the exception of 2012-53F, Lakeview Estates. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda, removing the one item. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. what we will go to our first item will be that of Lakeview Estates Plan 2012-53F Mr. Martin or Mr. Taylor I'm sorry it's page 4 item G Thank you. Final record plan, 2012-53F, Lakeview Estates, Lot 2, Track A. Oh, got another back. Oh, there we go. All right. the property in question is located on new circle road across from woodhill shopping center it is an existing car lot freedom dodge there is a park back in behind the property and lexington mall south and christian church property would be back in this direction relative to this property The plat proposes to subdivide an existing tract into two lots. This lot would be 1.8 acres. This will be 2.1 acres. Property is zone B3. As I said, it's an existing car lot. Access is to New Circle Road at this point. The plan that you see before you today is a revision. We received late yesterday afternoon. As a record plat, it is fairly straightforward. It was platted originally in the early 80s. This amendment, again, will create these two lots, was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee, subject to fairly standard conditions, engineering traffic, building inspection, addressing urban forester, and then addition of utility and street light easements as required. There were several cleanup conditions that applied to this property. Number seven, which is to denote sanitary sewer easements to the approval of the Division of Water Quality. There are easements on the property, but it appears that the existing sewer line was constructed outside of that easement, so it will be necessary to create an easement via this plat for that sewer line. They need to add a North Arrow. Apparently they tried, but apparently it didn't take on this particular revision. I'm sure they will be able to fix that. The other issue that staff was concerned about on the creation of this lot and this shared access point, the parent plat has an access easement that crosses Lot 1 to serve Lot 2. Now that they're sub-dividing lot two, we were concerned, and one of the requirements is that they extend that easement across this lot to serve this lot. This particular revision has a note that does state there will be reciprocal access across the two lots. So they have attempted to address that particular condition on the plan. As I stated, it is a late plan, and so therefore it's required to go before your technical committee. for review at the end of this month prior to certification. I believe the applicant wants to address that particular condition on this plan. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin at this point? Yes, ma'am. Yes, Mr. Martin, prior to this, since 1980, was the access between the two lots noted on the plan? Yes, ma'am. There was an access easement on the parent plat that connected lot one and lot two. This amendment that you see is subdividing lot two of that parent plat. So that's why we were concerned about extending the access easement. So you want to see it graphically shown, not just in verbs or words. I think the issue is that access be appropriately addressed so that it's not a problem. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you. The North Arrow wouldn't show up because it was on the points layer. Name first. Oh, sorry. We do know you, but for the record. I'm myself, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, staff. My name is Mike Robbins. Again, I'm here representing Foster Rowland Incorporated and our client, Freedom Dodge. As I was saying, on our computer, there was a North Arrow, but it was on the points layer, and it, for some reason, wasn't printing, so I had to change it over to another layer so it would print. So the ones that I've printed out for the sign-offs that I'm going to be handing out has an ortho on it. As this drawing that I brought by yesterday afternoon reflects, when this property was one contiguous unit, these easements were inside of itself and didn't need to have an easement. But since these easements service this lot over here, I've drawn these easements on there. The reciprocal access easement note says there exists on both lots 2A and 2B a mutual access easement which extends over all open paved surfaces thereon to provide ingress and egress to either lot from the other lot. So that, I believe, should take care of all that. One of the conditions was the sanitary sewer note, which says the sanitary sewer easement for the existing sanitary sewer line must be approved by the Division of Water Quality. So that condition is also on there. Now, the primary concern that our client has is that he has spent millions of dollars getting a fiat dealership. And he was wanting to open the doors and start selling fiats. And fiat told him, no, you can't do that until you get a sign in place. We want our sign out there advertising before you're allowed to start selling fiat. So he's got all his inventory tied up and no way to sell fiat. And so he needed another sign. Of course, you cannot have two signs on one lot. Thus, we've asked for the subdivision of this lot so that we can also have a sign on the fiat lot. Nothing is changing. We're not building any new sewers. We're not grading. There's nothing really changing except there's an imaginary line going to be down through the existing lot and a fiat sign put up. Because of that, we feel that the requirement to go before the technical review committee meeting would not really serve any useful purpose. I understand that there is procedure, and I understand that procedure is there for a reason and all that sort of thing, but I think that there's the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. And I think that in the spirit of the law, there's really no need to go to the technical review committee. And the upside of you're all making the decision to let us drop that condition for approval would be that Freedom Dodge could more quickly start selling these cars. Their salespeople could start paying local income tax. and the whole community would be better off. So if you can allow us to do that, I would be very happy. Additionally, before I close, I'd like to say that we have read all the conditions. I have, to the best of my knowledge and belief, complied with all the drafting conditions. I have already communicated via e-mail to all the divisions on the agenda that need to have sign-offs, and I've already gotten one sign-off back. So unless you all have any questions for me, I'm finished. Any questions for Mr. Robbins? Or any questions for the staff? Yes. I do have questions. When is the next meeting of the technical committee? June 27th. This is on the agenda for June 27th. I feel sorry I'm correct. Mr. Martin? Mr. Salley? Yes, sir. That is the next date. It's 13 days from today. Well, I'm just going to say that, you know, if I were paying interest on several million dollars, those few days could make a lot of difference than how much money I had to spend for renting that money. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. What was the reason that this came in so late? I think that when I talked to Alan Foster, I had the same question. I said, what happened? How did this happen? Apparently, Freedom Dodge did not realize that Fiat was not going to allow them to sell any cars until they got a sign. And so they called us in a hurry and said, you know, can you just rush this through? We've got to get this signed as quickly as possible. And we said, well, it's going to cost you a triple filing fees. And he said, okay, it's worth us to pay the triple filing fees if we can get this done quickly. So it wasn't because Freedom Dodge had so much money they didn't know what to do with it and they wanted to pay triple filing fees. They just had to pay the triple filing fees to try and get this before you all as quickly as possible. Mr. Penn, what's the status position on doing away with number 10? Mr. Penn, looking over the conditions, I think the only technical committee members that won't have an approval of this plat would be Division of Solid Waste and the Green Space and Pedestrian Planner. So Condition 6 will cover most of the technical committee members, and the first five conditions, of course, will cover those offices as well. So many of those agencies that would review this plan in 13 days will actually have a sign-off on this plan, and many can get any easements that they would need from that. So staff doesn't have any real objections to doing this? Given this explanation, we think that the agencies that will review a technical committee are already covered on the plan. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Robbins? If not, I'd ask if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this. If not, I will close this part of the hearing and open it up for any further discussion and or motion. I think I have all the explanation I need, so unless you all have some discussion, I will make a motion. We are ready. Go ahead, Mr. I would like to move for approval of Plan 2012-53F with the removal of Condition 10, please. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2012-53F, Lakeview Estates, with nine conditions, deleting number 10. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Have a great day. staying on page four of the agenda we'll move down to plan 2008 138 F Meadow Oaks we do have three units, three plans here that I think the staff will be able to present together and if everyone is in agreement or if any further discussions needed we can do so however one motion I think we'll be able to cover all three Oops. Push pin. Thank you. Good afternoon. As you spoke, we're going to look at the Meadow Oaks. They start on page 4, 5, and 6. These are all in for reapproval. The location of Meadow Oaks is going to be south of Winchester Road. This is Manowar. It's going to be east of Manowar. We have Blackford property located here to the south. As you notice, we have three individual plans that show this area here that we are discussing for reapproval. These plans are in for re-approval. They were originally approved in November of 2008. In February of 2009, they came in and asked for a waiver to bond the sidewalks on the private streets. The builder-developer asked so that the sidewalks could be built at time of finishing construction because during construction the sidewalks can be damaged. With that, the Planning Commission approved that waiver in February of 2009. And they add one condition to denote no certification of occupancy shall be issued for any dwelling unit until the sidewalks are constructed in conjunction with the driveway. So that was in February of 2009. June 10th in 2010, the plans had expired, and they came in and asked for re-approval. Again, June 2011, they came in and asked for an extension on the plans. They are back today, again, to ask for re-approval. The plans are similar in the sign-offs from the different governmental agencies, engineering, traffic, building inspection, addressing, forester, utilities. They have a couple modes that are similar. The property shall be developed in accordance with the final development plan and the verification of exactions. This is on the expansion area under the EAR1, EAR2 zone, so the exactions need to be reviewed. Since the last time these plans were approved, there has been some changes in the plans where the street tree information is now being reviewed by the urban forester instead of the Division of Building Inspection. So we have notes three and four. I think three is going to be revised for building inspection, and then the addition with the urban foresters note being changed to add the street tree information. With that, several of the other following conditions are cleanup conditions of just simple things for each individual plan. With that, I'm sorry. The plans are cross-hatched in certain areas because several of these plans had sections recorded on them. Unit 1A had the street recorded and the single-family lots were not. That would lead us into the larger area of development. We have two sections to create what has been recorded on Unit 1B, and the last section, which is the greenway located underneath, they're coming in for that plan to be reapproved so that they can record that also. With that, the staff recommends reapproval. Is there any other questions? Mr. Ben. Have the exactions been updated since 2008? Yes, sir. 2010, they were reviewed, and that's why we need to verify the exaction amounts for as of today, so they'll be recalculated. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Lori Kaley with the EA Partners. We're in agreement with the three PLATS conditions and request re-approval. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kaley? If not, I'll ask if anyone's in the audience that wish to speak on any one of these three. Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motion. And a motion can be taken for all three. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of Plan 2008-138-F. You want the other two? Yes, sure. Approval of Plan 2008-139-F. and approval of Plan 2008-140F. Thank you. And that was for re-approval? Correct. Approval, yes. Question, Mr. Penn? This is for the staff. How long can we continue to re-approve these things? I mean, can we go another three years, four years? It's endless then. Mr. Cayley said this. Is that right, Bill? Thank you. Theoretically, yes. All right. I was going to say we've got a lot of heads nodding. Affirmative. The developer doesn't want to do that, though. Motion has been made and seconded for re-approval of all three plans. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Caley. Our next item would be under development plans on page 7, development plan 2012-35 Hamburg Place Community. And we do have revisions in front of you. Mr. Taylor. Afternoon. The next item on your agenda is on page 7 under number 3 development plans. Item A is DP 2012-35 Hamburg Place Community, Phase 2A amended. This is for a property located near the intersection of Sir Barton and Old Rosebud and Ogden Way with Starshoot, a large townhouse-style apartment complex out through here. You recently saw a zone change and a final development plan for the property out here at this corner with Sir Barton and Old Rosebud. The purpose of this amendment is to add an additional access point to Old Rosebud in this location where they are finishing up the townhouse-style apartments in this area. We recently had a minor amendment, recently a year or two ago, to tweak the type of buildings and units they were putting in here. They are proposing this access point on this location opposite Pascoli Place in the Tuscany development. The street on this side is in, and they are lining it up across the street there. The staff did get a revised plan from the applicant this week that addressed the technical reasons for postponement, where their site statistics and their building counts did not match up. The staff has reviewed the revised plan, verified the open space and coverage does comply. They do have two revised conditions that you see in your agenda. There's an incorrect or a note that does need to be removed under number 8. And number 9 is to identify the location of the site triangle at the new intersection. As you can see, it is in the inside of a curve, and there's currently on-street parking for the units that front on Old Rosebud. And people do park along Old Rosebud and walk to the units in this area. There is concern about the ability to be able to see coming out of this side of the triangle. the side triangle in these two directions, it will probably result in this area being striped for no parking along the curb so that folks can see in the directions and able to turn onto the street. But that does fall under traffic engineering sign-off, and we have included it as a condition on number nine in order to make sure that item is on the plan. But the staff is recommending approval at this time. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Any questions from Mr. Taylor? If not, I'll say thank you for the moment and ask for the applicant. Good afternoon. John Henderson from EMH&T. Our client has agreed to remove the space of the on-street parking, as Chris said, and that's about it. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? If not, I would ask if there's anyone in the audience that wish to speak on this plan. Anyone else? See it. Any questions? No? Okay. Thank you, sir. I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any further discussion. Yes. I just want to point out that what we have on our agenda is not up to date. Oh, okay. Good. It's on the screen, and apparently we've got a handout. We do have a revision. Okay, good. Okay. Any further discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes, ma'am. I move for approval of DP 2012-35 and the nine conditions as on the new handout. Thank you. Second. Motion has been made for approval with the revisions and seconded. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Our next item is on page 8, item C, DP 2012-37, New Market Property. And once again, we do have revisions in front of you. All right. The next item on your agenda is on page 8. It's item C. It's DP-2012-37, the New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit 2E, and the Richardson Property, Amended. this is a amended final development plan for property located along todd's road i-75 is right here there's a church over here deer haven lane runs along the development next to the interstate the proposed polo club boulevard comes into todd's road here it's currently constructed in this area right here where we've graded. This area is all Polo Club Boulevard right-of-way that is owned by the city to be constructed. The purpose of this amendment is to use the existing one-story residential structure for an office use allowed in the CC zone. This area south here is all community center zone. The north is expansion area two, and transition area, expansion area. Again, the purpose of this amendment is to utilize the existing structure and add six additional parking spaces so that they can meet the eight required for the office use that's required under the CC zone. The staff had met numerous times with the applicant in traffic engineering. Show the first one. There's a long history with the new market development related to access. As you can see, we have unconstructed section of Polo Club. And, again, this will probably be a little difficult to see. But the first issue is that on this site was originally proposed for a gas station. It was assumed at the time of the development plans in 2005-2006 that construction of Polo Club would just continue right on and it would be done more quickly than it has been. There was proposed access to Todd's Road to be shifted back further from the intersection than the driveway of the original house, and they called for an access easement to come up to the property, connect to the townhouses for an access point onto Polo Club in this location. As you are all aware, this property has never redeveloped. Todd's Road is to be improved with a state project. The city is responsible for this portion of Polo Club. But these two projects have not occurred yet. The development of this as a gas station has not occurred. And once these other projects were completed, this access point to the townhouses was supposed to go away, and this access to Polar Club was to be the primary access out for this development. So the applicant came in and was asking to not have to construct this portion, this connection to the townhouses at this time. According to, if you look at the, we have an aerial photo, if you can fill it up there, and it may be difficult to see, but it's clear on the ground. that where Polo Club stops, right here, there is a dirt path. And again, this is older than our current aerials, but this is all constructed. The access easement does connect down to the subject property. The dirt path has continued to be used by residents in this area in an effort to get down and out to Todd's Road. The applicant was very concerned about constructing an access easement in this area when no access to Todd's Road is available at this time, because clearly if they're willing to drive over dirt in this area, they'd be willing to drive straight through the property out to Todd's Road. The staff certainly had no problems with delaying the construction of this until these two projects were completed in an effort to alleviate any cut-through traffic that would clearly happen if that straight shot were provided straight off the Todd's Road. So the applicant is showing it is hatched. One of the conditions on the revised plan in front of you is number 11, to denote the timing of the construction of the access drive to the adjoining townhouse area. That would be done in conjunction with planning and traffic engineering, and essentially the timing is related to redevelopment of the property and construction of those two public street projects at Todd's Road and Polo Club Boulevard. Number 10 was the Todd's Road access note. Again, on the previous plan, or even on this plan, there's a note that talks about access to the convenience store cannot occur until these projects are done. Again, this applicant is not proposing new access. That note, we feel, can go away when this comes in for redevelopment and new access is proposed, that note essentially would come back in to play with whether or not these improvements have been done. The applicant is only proposing to utilize the existing driveway access point and widen it just enough for two vehicles to pass each other as well as for Fire and Emergency Services solid waste folks to service the property as its commercial use. With that, the staff is recommending approval subject to the 11 revised conditions that are handed out in front of you. If you have any questions on the plane, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Taylor? Chris, I do have one in regards to the Todd's Road access note that your, or at least the staff, is proposing to delete at this time, recognizing that it may not be needed now, should it be modified so that, leaving it so that when it does come back into play that we haven't lost it? Correct. I think that is the primary reason we're having them continue to show this access, so that it's very clear that access in the future is to be out here. This note is talking now about an access point that's not even shown on the plan. So it could be a little misleading to say that Todd's Road access is going to be something on here, can't occur until something else happens. They're not proposing at this time. When this comes in for redevelopment, if these projects are done, there's no question that access will be moved further back from the intersection. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Chris? If not, is the applicant here? Yes, please come forward. Mr. Chairman, we do have a final vote. Mr. Martin does need to go over the executioner of master plan compliance reports. Mr. Martin. Thank you. Did not mean to forget you. No, it's quite all right, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. As you can see on your handout, one of the requirements for approval is number eight, and that is provided that the Planning Commission does make a finding that this plan complies with the provisions of the EAMP. We have supplied you with a compliance report as required. There are several major components in the AMP that require the compliance report, one of which is the future land use. And as Mr. Taylor explained, this is an office use that does comply with the CC zoning. The CC zoning is, in fact, complies with the AMP. It was recommended for this location, and it has been zoned, as you can see, in this location. It is bordered to the north with the AR2 residential zoning, along with the TA overlay in this area. This is your CC zone through here. This is approximately 3.9 acres total of CC Zone. As I stated before, CC Zone does allow for residential office and commercial uses that are intended to complement and serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. There are no proposed residential changes to the plan at this time. The previous development that the Planning Commission approved did make some small changes to the townhouse area. It added the carports, some parking, and that sort of thing. This particular use, the staff sees as more of an interim and temporary use, utilizing the existing structure. As was explained, the previous plan showed a much higher intensity commercial use. When the Polo Club Boulevard is eventually built, when Todd's Road improvements are done, staff would anticipate that it would increase the pressure for redevelopment of this lot for a more intense commercial use. At that time, of course, it will be reviewed and evaluated for additional compliance with the AAMP. The community design element of the AAMP addresses much of the surrounding areas and relationships that exist both on the ground and with the built environment. There aren't any greenways, scenic overlays, or rural roads that are in this area governed by this development plan. There are some in the area, but there are none on this particular development plan that are affected by it. The neighborhood of the townhouses is served by the existing local street system. It's connected to the residential single-family homes to the north. Again, as I stated before, future development of the property would constitute the need to reevaluate this little one-acre amendment in terms of compliance with the design element. Mr. Taylor mentioned to you the access into the townhouse area to allow access to Coal Club Boulevard. That easement has been platted. That easement exists. This property can use that easement in the future should it become necessary. The folks before you today, should they choose to, could utilize that easement. Of course, you heard the reasons why they don't want to utilize that easement, and they are concerned with safety. The infrastructure element that is a major component of the AMP plan consists of stormwater, sanitary sewer, and the street systems. There are some other elements of that that address public services such as parks, libraries, and schools and that sort of thing, none of which, again, are impacted by this particular development plan. The sanitary sewers do exist. The trunk lines do exist. They're off this development plan up here to the north near the creek. It is a trunk line. This development, all this development in here is served by a pump station which goes to those trunk lines. The stormwater system that is also a regional system is located to the north. In this immediate area to the north along Deerhaven, and Deerhaven runs up and then back this way, there is a detention basin that is required should that property develop. And you may recall the school plan that you saw recently on the Clark property. There is a detention basin that is part of the required regional system for this area. The most important infrastructure element is, of course, Polo Club Boulevard. And as Ms. Taylor explained, that is the responsibility of the urban county government to construct that particular portion of Polo Club Boulevard. There is no timetable as of yet when that will be constructed. So it is staff opinion that that particular element is not applicable to the development plan that you see before you today. With that, staff has in their report come to the conclusion that this plan, this amendment, does substantially comply with the future land use, community design, and infrastructure elements of the AMP. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Yes, Mr. Penn. Tom, the current use or the use that they want to do with this is consistent in the CC land. In other words, it's not an inconsistent use. No, sir, it is not. And should this property be redeveloped into a service station, quick pick, whatever you want to call it there, that still is a use within the CC zone? Yes, sir, it is. So we're not going to be looking at a one-acre zone change if this thing redevelops? I would not anticipate that, no, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, I'll ask for the applicant now. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, committee members. My name is Donna Horn. I am the owner of Horn & Associates in Rehabilitation. We've been in business for over 30 years. We provide therapy services. I'm a speech pathologist with a doctorate degree in something else. We do speech and physical therapy and occupational therapy and psychology and social work and case management. This particular piece of property was purchased so that we could provide therapy services for children and young adults that have experienced brain injuries and perhaps other therapy needs, most of whom will be immobile and transported to the location. We're very excited about the possibility of finding a house that has been zoned appropriately that we can use for activities of daily living. There are very few houses in Fayette County that are zoned such, and we want to provide our clients with the opportunity to go to school, to go to college, to go to work, and to live independently. And this is our step to do such. It will be a 9 to 5 or maybe even 9 to 3 therapy group. I'd love to get our therapist to stay later and work longer, but we don't. And so we won't be there in the evenings or on the weekends. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. We will be ADA compliant. I think as I spoke to many of you all last week, ADA is the inside of a house, and I am pushing for ADA compliance to be everything up until the point that you get to that doorway. including dumpsters, which are not. But that's a whole different issue. Happy to answer questions or to hand it over to Morgan, who also has more information. Any questions? No. Mr. Morgan, do you have anything to add? Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name is Morgan Dyer, representing Ms. Warren today. I have in my possession an affidavit for the signed posting as requested by Mr. Martin and the planning staff. We do agree to comply with the conditions and request approval at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? If not, we may want a copy of that for the minutes. If you would, yeah, there you go. Thank you. If there's no further questions, I would ask if there's anyone in the audience that wish to speak in addition to this. In favor, first, in opposition, second? Okay. Each one of you all may come up. Your name, sir? Yeah, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning, zoning, and staff. My name is Jim Baldridge, and I'm the executive pastor at Crossroads Christian Church, which is located right across the street from this property. And I just wanted to clarify that I guess there is not a zoning change with this property. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. That was really the only clarification that I needed. It is a permitted use for what they're asking for. Thank you, sir. Yes, anyone else? Please come forward. Yes. Hi, my name is Elizabeth Booth and I live at 1940 Deerhaven Lane. I've lived there since 1993 and I have been involved in the EAMP planning and zoning since the day I moved in. I've been to countless meetings dating back to 1995 when the EAMP was first being discussed. This is my backyard. I know this puppy inside and out. I'm very concerned, and I also know the groundwork and the guidelines very well. And today I'm asking that the Planning Commission uphold and enforce guidelines that were set in place many years back. That simple. To begin with, this parcel, and let's just talk the parcel in green because that's the one that is the CC. It is in the EAMP, and it's a very sensitive area in its own. The second, it's designated CC, which is a community center, and there are very few of those in the EAMP. I want to say there's only three. So what is done here is a very sensitive area, and there are certain guidelines that need to be followed. And I just ask for you to do your job and to enforce these guidelines, even though maybe you weren't here back when the EAMP was in place and when the guidelines were set in place. It's your responsibility to make sure that they're followed. I'm not against the basic idea of the business going in here. In my opinion, it's better than a gas station. I just ask you to deny this plan today because it just needs to get cleaned up, redrawn, and include details that comply with the CC zoning. I assume it was in an attempt to save money that an outdated plan was taken and just the new concept was drawn over top of it. But it results in a confusing plan that's hard to follow. And what needs to be done, it just needs to get redrawn, just the area in green. I mean, it's hard to even see right now. You know, the pink area, that's all developed and it's all done. We're talking that little teeny green area. Can we blow it up, make it look bigger, and look at just that? That's the part that is the CC, and there's lots of information that needs to be taken into consideration. So can we just ask for it to be redrawn and the guidelines to be taken place? An example of what I'm talking about is the drawing of all the townhomes and the talk of the gas station. That was an old, poor plan, and it never got followed through. I'm just asking to redraw it and resubmit it. My real concerns today are for safety and for following the guidelines of the CC. In safety, I'm talking traffic safety. Under the general notes in there, I know it's probably really, really hard for you to see, and I don't know what's put in front of you up there, but under the general notes three, I'll read it. Access shall be limited to the points indicated on this plan. Four, entrance details are subject to the approval of the urban county traffic engineer. And 14, construction access shall be from Todd's Road. Can we just kind of clarify that and enforce that and figure out what that all means? All of these entrances onto Todd's Road, the Deerhaven, the townhomes, and this property, they were all supposed to be temporary until the boulevard was to be developed. And I totally understand that. But who knows when that boulevard is going to be constructed. And in the meantime, let's be safe and use entrances that will not come onto Todd's Road. There's plenty of land there. It can be done. We don't need to have a third main entrance into a business in such a small area. They can use the back entrance. And that was what the idea of it to be. It was supposed to be, you know, after construction was done, that entrance onto Todd's Road was supposed to be eliminated. We can still do that today. It's easy. I went to the planning staff yesterday because I was confused, and I was asking for clarification on what entrances were going to be used. And I was told, just like was stated earlier, that the driveway was going to be widened, and that was going to be used as the main entrance, And the rear entrance was just drawn to comply, and they were not going to enforce that it had to be developed because it was too costly. So we're doing money over safety. They spoke about the people cutting through, and the picture that was put up there, it's really hard to see. It is an old picture because they told me about people cutting through there. I live right there, so on the way home yesterday, I drove out there, and there is no dirt path. Somebody even took spray paint, and they're making it as parking areas so nobody goes through. I ask you to go out there and look at it. There's no way that people can cut through. Okay? It's, this is one. I mean, this is so teeny. but this area was blocked off. There was a big, huge hill of dirt and stones and rocks, so nobody could get through there. This area here were makeshift parking areas, and cars were parked there. Same with this area down here. I did not see this big cut-through area, and I live there. This is the safest way to have the people come down this way. the safest way, especially if we're talking disabled people, to come in. Let's get rid of this entrance onto Todd's Road. Even the notes on the plan, they're up there somewhere. I'm sorry if I broke this link. Todd's Road access to the convenience store gas station shall not occur until Deerhaven Lane, the temporary access to Todd's Road, had been removed. It was declared unsafe then. It's still unsafe today. I have just a handout that I want to give to you folks, just because I don't know how many of you know the Community Center CC Zone. And I apologize if I don't have copies for everyone. These copies were printed right off of your zoning ordinance online. Go under CC. And the restriction applied to community center zone. 23A-9, intent. The intent of the zone is to implement the community center land use designation and the expansion area master plan by providing a mixture of residential uses and non-residential uses which serve the needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Okay, good. Flip to the back page under 23A-9K, special provisions number four. Parking areas shall be designed so as to minimize the placement of parking between the buildings and the adjoining streets. That doesn't follow. This plan does not follow. They're putting the parking between the building and Todd's Road. There is plenty of room behind the building to put the parking area. They put number four in here for a specific reason. Yesterday, I again went to the planning staff and asked them why this wasn't being enforced. The reply I received was, and why would we ask her to do that? It's too costly. Seriously? I was told if I wanted to enforce it, that I had to come to this meeting and talk to you. That's why I'm here in front of you. Jump down to number five. each development within the CC zone shall have access to pedestrian access way. There is none on this plan. No sidewalks. Nothing. Again, told by the planning staff, too costly and not needed? Not needed? It's a community center. It was put in the EAMP zoning for a reason. And each development shall provide substantial facilities for the parking of bicycles. It's addressed in there somewhere under 18, under general notes, but I could not be shown exactly where the parking was going to be. It's really not a biggie, but it's still important. And I don't mean to be respectful to the planning staff. I really, really, really don't. I just feel that they may not have been aware of these specific guidelines for the community center zoning. I am because I've been coming here since 1995. And I just ask you as a planning commission to enforce these zoning restrictions, turn down this plan today, and just get it redrawn to meet these requirements and enforce them. It's that simple. I just wanted to read a few other zoning restrictions under the regular zoning. This is not under the CC. This is under regular zoning. 23A Zoning Categories and Restrictions, 23A-2H Pedestrian Access Way. All properties shall have access to a pedestrian access way and development plan shall provide for connections between residential uses, non-residential uses, greenways and other pedestrian access ways. The development of any parcel of land which abuts a land in a CC zone shall provide a pedestrian accessway directly to the community center, not being followed. 23A-2K, accessory structures prohibited in front yards. No accessory structure may be located within any yard area directly between a principal structure and any street except an alley. Todd's Road is not an alley. Can we please move the dumpster pad behind the building so it's not seen from Todd's Road? I know this plan is really teeny-teeny, but they're showing the dumpster pad between the building and Todd's Road. Todd's Road is not an alley. It should not be there. Once again, there's plenty of room behind the building. The parcel is very sensitive. CC and the EAMP. Please enforce the guidelines. Like I said, I'm not against what she wants to do. That's fine. It's allowed. Just do it properly. And I understand that these items are expensive, but it's part of doing business. And no offense, she's the one that decided where to locate it, and she said that there were one of few houses, so she must have known that there were certain guidelines that have to be followed. There has been hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money spent in the development of the EAMP. Charlie Siemens, I'm not sure if that name rings a bell to any of you, but he was the gentleman that was hired years and years ago to develop this. Please don't make that all wasted money. Enforce the guidelines set in place. deny this plan today, have it resubmitted to comply to the zoning restrictions. Thank you for your time. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. My name is David Booth, 1940 Deerhaven Lane. I will try not to repeat what my wife said, but I want to try a little background and history on this. and discuss some of the issues. Mr. Faith, excuse me, where did you say you live? 1940 Deerhaven Lane. Also, Elizabeth's my wife, so same residence. Okay, thank you. I want to start off by saying, you know, this is in the EAMP. A lot of restrictions were put on EAMP property. I heard a lot when the staff members were presenting. They concerned me. Well, this is just temporary. We're going to allow it with these exceptions. and I'm sure it will get redeveloped in the future. Don't we have a master plan to plan things? Should we do things temporary that don't meet the plan? Because, oh, it will change in the future. Don't worry about it. All right? And really that's where I kind of come into this. This is in the AMP. There were only three CC zones in the AMP. This is one of those three. It has been on the table since 1995. I have come to this room and had meetings for 17 years on this piece of property, trying to get it to be done right. And now we're, well, okay, we'll kind of take a recycle plan, and I'm sure it will change in the future. So I want to give a history lesson, and I'm going to go back to 1995. How long is this history lesson? Short, very short. We do know the CC land. Okay. 1995, first development plan for this property. Here it is right here, CCEAR2. Walnut Hill Childsburg, road to be removed. Plan not to be approved unless this road is removed and a new access road built. This shows the new access road to a small subdivision. It was noted in 1995 this was dangerous. It's an EAMP, it's dangerous. It has been said it should not be built that way. 1995. 1997, two years later, new plan. Same piece of property. New access road cut through the same piece of property. B-A-R-2, temporary access, Walnut Hill-Charlesburg to be removed once the boulevard is built. Okay, that's 15 years ago. Next plan. later in 1997. New plan. Temporary access road to be removed when the boulevard is built. Again. Sat through the meetings. Everyone in the meeting agreed. Great, this is temporary. We're going to build the boulevard. Every one of these meetings, if you check the notes, no buildings shall be built until the boulevard is constructed. Every one of those meetings say that in the notes. Buildings are built. 2000. Here's the plan for the boulevard. Drawn by the city. City's plan. Boulevard. Access way purchase. The other part I like to point out, all of the exaction fees for all of the development that occurred here was supposed to pay for this boulevard that never got built. Right now, the boulevard stops here. You are forced to drive the wrong way down a one-way road and exit through a group of residential area. That temporary road has been in place since 1995. It has been repaved three times, and speed bumps have been built on it twice. They were originally put in an asphalt. Now they're in rubber. It is a dangerous area. Here is the boulevard drawn. Now, I also want to note a couple of things. Note all the sidewalks drawn on the boulevard through this property. They're all in that property because it was recognized. It's CC. It needs access. There needs to be sidewalks there. 2001. Later. New development plan. Same notes. Get rid of it. There's a 2004 plan. There's a 2007 plan. Every single plan says nothing to be built until we get the boulevard in because we have to improve this. Now, here's my number one concern. Right now, we have the entire Collector Boulevard forced out backwards through closed Deerhaven Lane because every plan so far says that's not there. It is there. It has been noted. It has been talked about. The money's been approved. You own the right-of-way to correct it. We force all of the Collector Boulevard through that residential area. Okay? we force all of the townhomes through this area. Now I want to point out, this is I-75. In a distance of 150 feet, we will have three connections onto Todd's Road, one of which is straight across the street from Southland Christian Church's exit. You're going to have three temporary entrances now. Because we can't do this right. Because we won't do what we've said we're going to do for 17 years. It's in the AMP. We cannot continue to develop, and well, someday we'll address this. Someday we'll address it when some child dies on this road. Or some person is hit here on Todd's Road because they're pulling out with three entrances within 150 feet. None of which meet the requirements of the traffic that's there. This connection is horrible for all these townhomes to exit out of. This is ridiculous with everybody coming across the boulevard and running through a residential neighborhood backward, across speed lumps through a half-done cul-de-sac, and coming out, and now we're going to add a third one. Just because we can't build this, because it would be too expensive to connect this and make this right. More importantly, to make this all right by putting in Polo Club Boulevard. I say we've got to stop development until we do what we say we're going to do. Until we spend the money we've collected from all the developers. They all paid their exaction fees to get this done. I sat in all the meetings. They said, well, those exaction fees will pay for that boulevard. You don't have to worry about it. As a matter of fact, the developer that did this agreed to build it. He said, I will build the boulevard to make my property better. And the city told him no. He had problems getting the right-of-way at that time. Okay? The right-of-way is there. The exaction's been collected. Do not allow to continue development until we kill somebody. That's really what it comes down to. I'm going to love sitting in that meeting. So all I'm going to say is it shows sidewalks. We don't have them. It asks for eight parking spaces. If you look at it, they're counting two parking spaces inside of a residential garage. I don't believe that makes the P1 zoning ordinance. It calls for eight. Two of those sit inside of a residential garage. I don't believe those are public access parking spaces, which would be required in a P1 zone. guys let's make this right i mean i do not object at all i appreciate the use of the property i think that's fine i'm not objecting that i'm saying we're going to kill somebody here and we're just going to keep adding to it so thank you thank you mr booth anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, I would ask for staff. Let me ask if the Commission has any questions first. Staff, do you have any rebuttal? I did want to point out the reason for this amendment we met with the applicant after they purchased the property the only reason that this plan is has come before us the change of use is allowed in the zone had there been six additional parking spaces on this property the applicant could have come in for a zoning compliance permit for the change of use and not had to amend the development plan there was two parking spaces in the garage basically like in the residential use the purpose of the amendment is to add eight six parking spaces to meet what is required for the 1,500 square foot use of the property. Just, again, in the staff's discussion about cost related to that, if you remember your Central Baptist discussion, there's nothing new being constructed on this property. So cost is discussed in terms of what the staff is able to ask for in terms of improvements and new construction and major changes to a plan where no new development is being done on the property is simply a change of use. Cost is a factor in staff's ability to ask for major enhancements and improvements to property. I do want to point out pedestrian facilities, again, are the responsibility for the state and local road projects. the pedestrian facilities will be constructed. On the map that you see there, it's difficult to see. I don't know if we can get it a little dimmer, but you can see a full pedestrian system is proposed along both frontages of Polo Club and Todd's Road. Again, those pedestrian facilities and the ability to connect to a system, That's difficult to do without the road system in place at this time. But if there's any other questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you. Mr. Penn? The dumpster pay is a new construction, isn't it? Yes, that is. Once the development plan comes in, the full technical review takes place, and that's when the widening of the existing access point, the need to meet the other aspects that go into technical review of a development plan have taken place. There was a lot of discussion about the improvement of the existing access point. We had a lengthy discussion with both the applicant and traffic engineering about this access point and the widening of it as minimally as possible just to serve two passing vehicles. But, yes, the new, it is a dumpster pad that is required for commercial use to serve the property, and that is new. To follow up on that, then, to meet the conditions of the CC plan, that dumpster pad should have been behind the house. Isn't that right? Dumpsters are not accessory structures. So that provision in the EMP about accessory structures, I don't believe that applies to dumpsters. Okay. Thank you. Screening, obviously, is still part of the ordinance and would have to be screened accordingly. Any other questions? Yes, Patrick. I don't know where our screens are to request it, but I don't really feel like getting into the details of it. I'm more concerned about what's been brought up at the tail end of this, which is the bigger picture, which is we or our colleagues in volunteer roles or our colleagues on the city have postponed something that should have been fixed a long time ago. I don't think that we're doing a service to the city with exacerbating a problem or kicking the can down the road. So I'd like to hear from traffic. Is traffic willing to take on that this is adequate for the planning for a city of our size? Is staff willing to say that this is okay? given what we just heard it sounds to me like this is in violation of the existing rules this isn't a change of use to an allowed use in the zone the issues of timing of construction of Policlin Boulevard and widening of Todd's Road are out of planning staff's hands the applicant is proposing to utilize the existing property under the existing zoning using the existing rules They're simply trying to bring it up to the standards that are required, the minimal standards that are required to do that. And staff is attempting to time those improvements to when they're most appropriate. There is no other access for this property currently except to Todd's Road. They don't have any access to Fuller Club Boulevard. So there are limited options in terms of improving the access on Todd's, but I can let traffic speak to their concerns as well. Thank you, Mr. Schamer. Mr. Neal, thank you for coming forward. My name is Jeff Neal with Traffic Engineering. And as far as this property goes, and I guess maybe start off with the Polar Club extension, really, as Mr. Booth said, that would fix a lot of things. We thought it would be here by now, but it's not been funded to this point. This property, whenever it came in as a gas station, raised a lot of concerns, and that's why a lot of the notes were on there as far as the amount of traffic being generated by that proposal. This proposal here is a very light traffic generator. Most of the people will be brought in by bus, from what I understand, passenger vans and things of that nature. and it's not going to be a lot more traffic than what basically a residence will. An average family will generate 10 trips a day. This may generate 20 to 30 trips a day. So it's not going to be a lot more traffic than what would be there already if a large family lived there. And what about the other concerns that were raised, the multiple access and everything else, just because we're only talking about that small parcel, that didn't come into consideration? Well, we were looking at just basically improving what was there to work with without getting into doing a lot of things that would be torn out when the roadway projects come through. We don't know when those roadway projects are coming through, but we didn't want to put something in and have to take it out five years from now. Yeah, but with the revenue situation such as it is, I think it's highly unlikely the city's going to be building that road. meantime soon. Do you agree? That's probably a good estimate. I don't know. This gives me some real concerns about moving forward with something that is already a problem. I'm sorry, this is a question period. I'll save it for comment. Thank you. Any other questions for staff, representative or opposition? Yes. I'm sorry, Ms. Beatty. I would just like to know, the last time that staff was physically on the property, given what we just heard, the two responses about the dirt road and whether or not it has traffic on it. Can someone just tell us when the last time staff physically was on the property? I have not been on the site in review of this plan. What I have here is a more recent, as you can see, the townhouses are fully constructed here. And again, it's difficult to see in this light. but you can clearly see a dirt path straight off the end of the right-of-way of Polo Club Boulevard coming down to the concrete pavement area at the end of the townhouses. One second. Again, that area is right here. The tire path comes down. This is the end of the Polo Club right-of-way. And again, this monitor and this resolution doesn't do it justice, but we can pass it around if you like. You can see the dirt path for vehicles as it drives down right through there. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Blanton. Mr. Taylor, as I understand it, this is an existing structure. Yes. With an existing driveway onto Todd's Road? Correct. You know, there are a lot of concerns that have been raised that are valid concerns. However, what are our parameters of what we can and can't ask them to do since they are not, you know, redeveloping this property in a grand scale? I mean, you know, there are some concerns, but they're really beyond our scope here today, are they not? Yeah, well, I think Leo could better answer what our fine parameters are in terms of asking for improvements. I would defer that to her. Ms. Bland, I would say staff always takes a commensurate review of these types of issues. For instance, to expect this property owner to complete the boulevard, that would be way out of scale with the improvements they're proposing. Likewise, the Highway Department has plans to improve Todd's Road. So much improvement that we often discuss with other development plans is really not on the table in this case because there is a state project planned and they'll have jurisdiction. So then we're left to some of the issues that Mr. Neal discussed, how can we improve the situation not knowing how temporary this will be. Thank you. That's the thing. If there's none of the other questions. Oh, I'm sorry. Rochelle. Well, I basically agree with what Bill said. I mean, to what extent do you want more detail in terms of, I mean, for instance, even when we have corridor landscaping requirements, they never are triggered unless there's at least a 25 percent redevelopment of a structure. You can't put demands on a property owner that far exceed the work that he's putting into his own property. There's been plenty of case law out there where developers have sued saying, what you're asking me to do is just far out of line and out of balance with what my project is doing as far as putting an impact on the existing infrastructure, and you can't expect me to put that kind of money in there. The other thing that concerns me is the only road footage that I can see this property has right now, and the only access it has right now is Todd's Road. So there's really no way to require it under the current circumstances to create an access point anywhere else. And I'm also concerned by saying, if you say, well, we really shouldn't allow anything here then until all this is done, well, are you going to pay for the property? Because it's basically going to be a temporary taking of any realistic use of that property. So I think the staff has tried to come through kind of in a compromised position here, improve the situation as much as they can, commensurate with what the applicant is doing with the property, and then the plan shows that as future roads and things go in, And there may be alteration when it does redevelop into something more intensive than what's being proposed here. Thank you, Ms. Bowen. One brief question. I'm going to close this part of the hearing. One brief statement. You said there's no other access. It's actually shown on the plan. They just said they're not going to build it. You need a microphone, sir. and I think everybody realizes this. This drive, if it's built, provides access. And you could not have any access to Todd's Road then at all. This drive right here that they're saying they're not going to build wouldn't provide access. That's public roads right there. So to say that there's no other access for this property, it's right there. It's on the plan either. Thank you, Mr. Bates. Also, just adding in the same thing, I'm most concerned if we approve this and pull the note about change of use and blocking this entrance. That really concerns me. Because three years from now, when I'm standing in this meeting and this is approved and there's no note about closing a temporary entrance, and then it's a gas station. You said, well, they didn't have to have it. It's an allowed use. I don't have to make a change. Here we are. We're kicking this can down the road and pushing this off. We need to solve it. Thank you, Mr. Peeth. Ms. Blanton, did you have a question? No, I just wanted to clarify what Ms. Boland, what I heard her saying is we're talking about current access and what we can impose on a property owner that's not making major changes to the property. And so Todd's Road is, in fact, the only access point. Thank you. I need to clarify one statement. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. This note does not relate to the closure of this temporary access point. It is about this proposed previously and is not proposed on this plan. Just to make it clear, this note is not related to the closure of this. There's a note that simply says there's temporary access until Boulevard is constructed. That stays on the plan. This is still going away. That stays on the plan. This note was related to a no longer proposed access on this lot. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. Traylor. I'm going to allow the applicant to speak briefly for any possible rebuttals. I always think I jump into more than I know what I'm jumping into, and I clearly did this here. We want to be good neighbors. We will do everything we can to be good neighbors and to be very safe. I do want to iterate that the people that we will be serving may be less than if a family of three live there with teenagers. We have wheels that bring our clients in the morning, and then we have no other traffic until they leave in the afternoon. These are therapy services that are three, four, and five, and six hours long, very intensive therapy. I also want to address that I have been cleaning up people that have been driving to the back of the property and having parties with alcohol, and we have cleaned up on a continuous basis trash bags from that back, somehow entrance, somehow or another, where it has been a party spot where people sit on the polo club components and in the back of the house. And apparently that's been going on for some years. We want to be good neighbors. We're not going to try to have a raceway going in and out of the house. That won't be safe for my own clients. Thank you, Ms. Horne. Ladies and gentlemen, Morgan Dye again. We thank you very much for your time. We've presented this to the planning staff, technical committee, and the subdivision committee. We all recommend approval. We request that you approve this plan today. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion at this point. Any further discussion and a motion whenever anybody's ready? Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. First of all, I... Excuse me, Mr. Wilson. Denise, our screens seem to be frozen. Can you possibly look, clean it up? Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. Go ahead. One quick question related to the second access. What was the reason given as to why that other access was not opened up? Was it simply cost? Mr. Taylor? This one? Yes. The last here? Yeah, that one right there, the one that goes back out to the other side. The primary reason was for cut-through traffic. They would use this, they currently uses this. We did not want to create cut-through movement straight through her property. Even if, in fact, it was temporary? Which one? This or down here? No, up at the top. Yes. This is to be a permanent access when it's constructed. This is meant to be permanent so that whatever use here has access to polo club. So when this is constructed, it's permanent. This is designed to be a permanent access. I'm lost a little bit here, just a little bit. That road right now, why could you not construct it right now to get that access going back out to the other side? They certainly could. They could? They could. The concern that the applicant stated and requested, which we evaluated with traffic engineering, was their concern about cut-through traffic. That is the primary reason for not constructing it at this time, because this does not exist, and the only way out is, instead of going around, is to come through. Okay. That's the primary reason. Other questions from the Planning Commission? Any? Yes, ma'am. Yes. If Todd's Road driveway, the original driveway to the house, were closed, they couldn't go through, right? That's correct. And if that's the Planning Commission's wishes, that is something that could be done on this plan. Then they would have the parking in the back, the dumpster in the back, not on the Todd's Road, which I think the ordinance says. And it's just a matter of having back access instead of Todd's Road access. Again, the issue for planning staff was what is the appropriate amount of improvements for this property given this level of construction or lack thereof on the plan. That is what staff, traffic, and the applicant are attempting to balance by asking to construct a whole new parking area somewhere else and new access for an existing site. That's it. But you have to weigh that against having precedent in the CC zone. Okay. Other questions or statements or comments? Yes, Mr. Penn. I don't know who to direct this question to, but I guess because Chris is sitting there, I'll throw it at him. The point about the exaction fees funding the road, not the state road, but the Polo Club Road, I know there's some validity to that, but I don't know how much weight to put into that, Chris. I'll try to clarify a little bit of the very unique and frustrating history of trying to get Polo Club Boulevard constructed through here. At one time, initially, after a big blow-up, there was a lot of argument about where Polo Club would actually go between this property, which is now developed behind in the church immediately to the east. I know Ms. Booth remembers, and I remember her son was a baby in a stroller while we were all trying to hammer that out in a room. When the city was trying to negotiate a complete breakdown between the developer and that church, we actually did, over a course of intense meetings, broker an agreement by which the developer was going to construct that. Unfortunately, the church went under. that was in play at that time, and there was no one around to give that developer the authority to enter onto that property, and the church did not hold up their end, so we were frustrated at that point. Ms. Booth is also right at one time, Mr. and Mr. Booth, that the Clark property developers were very interested in having this constructed to make a good entry back into the Clark property subdivision, and at one time they offered a 50-50 split. If the city would come up with half, they would do half. We presented that to council. It was not accepted by council. We also, at another time, were trying to get it done through there, and as also there was a piece of property where the right-of-way did not exist and the owner would not sell. Eventually the owner changed their mind and the city did get that right-of-way. So now the right-of-way is there, but the costs have escalated tremendously from the original estimates to what it will need to take because of new drainage requirements and other things. I forget the actual number, but it is in the exaction calculations. This part of the boulevard actually from Todd's Road all the way to the Winchester Road is part of one giant exaction pool. And if you look at what is developed and what has been built, my recollection is there is no cash in that part of the exaction fund because the improvements that have been put in the ground in that system have exceeded what has come in so far from exactions. exactions. Now, you can't hold me to that exactly, but most of the Clark property is not developed. A lot of the property on the other side of Manowar have not yet developed, and again, I feel very reasonably comfortable saying there is no cash, certainly not enough cash to pay for this construction. So where does that leave this being done? It will have to be done probably through urban county government stepping up and actually funding the money, probably through a bond or something like that when times are right. I know there was a lot of interest in this at a lot of levels. It's the last piece of this entire system that includes Polo Club Boulevard to Winchester Road and also Hayes Boulevard from Todd's Road on down to the 8th and Spoonsboro Road was actually the major road system that was included in the exaction program for this area. So again, that's the history. I just wanted to explain that. That's what we need to hear, Chris. Thank you, Chris. Any other questions, statements? Yes, Mike? Are you ready for a motion? I am. Okay. I mean, I live in that area, and I don't care if they ever build a polo club or not. I like it being dead in. But I think it's unreasonable to ask them to connect to the little access road that goes back there and connects to the townhouses. I believe all that's private streets. and what you're doing is you're taking one private business and you're sending the traffic into that private street, which if I were the owner of that private street, I wouldn't want somebody forcing people into my private community that way. So I think it's better to come out on Todd's Road. And since the house, Ms. Blanton pointed out, the house is existing and all they're doing is adding a couple parking places, I think, and maybe just cleaning up the inside. So I'm going to move approval of DP 2012-37 on the revised sheet. And I think you're pointing to me that you need approval of the EMAP. and we also need to make a finding that it complies with the EAMAP. So move. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2012-37, noting that it is the findings of the EAMP compliance report. Mr. Brewer, question? No, it's not a question. It's a statement. I was trying to make a statement before a motion was made because I feel this is a classic damned if you do damned if you don't. I think our hands are tied as to what we can do, but I feel that we should do something. This is a bad situation that we shouldn't exacerbate. I agree that we can't put it on the applicant. It's not reasonable to do that. I think we're pushing a problem out. We're in a revenue situation that is not likely going to be fixed from the council anytime soon. And I don't know, is there something else that we can put forward within our motion that would try to push the council and the city to do what they've agreed to do? So I guess that is a question for somebody. Do I need to wait for the motion first? Because I'm just not comfortable supporting something, even though all the rules tell me it's the right thing to do. I think we're doing the wrong thing by the city by letting this problem continue. while fully recognizing that we can't put it on the applicant. And so there we are. Okay, personally, I'd like to take care of the motion first and hopefully get the question answered at that point in time. Mr. Penn, do you have a question? I have a question or a statement. I'm like Patrick. I'm damned if you do and damned if you don't. I understand the exaction things and the money. There's a lot of money credited for things that we don't see. and I've struggled all the time I've been on here to understand that, Patrick, and Chris did as good a job as you can do trying to explain it. You know, it's hard for us to comprehend that. This is non-intensive use, and I don't see how you can hold this person hostage that wants to do a permitted use in that area because we don't like what's around it, or at least how things have worked out and shouldn't have worked out before. So I'm going to be inclined to hold my nose and vote for this, but I certainly don't like the process, and I certainly don't like the fact that it's temporary. You know, it's temporary, and we're going to have to deal with it, or somebody's going to have to deal with it down the road. So that's kind of where I am at this. Ms. Copeland. Yes. Why can't we make a note on this plan that says that it's a compromise considering the conditions and that possibly it's not in real good conformance to the CC regulations so that it's signaled that the next time this plan comes up, maybe Polo Club will be built. It will become something bigger and fancier than a place for medical treatment that operates from 9 to 3. We have a 24-hour something that really serves the community. We had a note on this plan that says now it's time to do that, So you can't grandfather these conditions in or grandfather these conditions forward. Personally, I would think that with the statements made here today and being in the minutes, that the minutes would reflect those concerns. And if this ever came up again, I think attention would be made to those concerns. Whether it gets Polo Club built or not, I don't know. Mr. Brewer? Okay, I'll try to put it just one more time. I'm in agreement with Marie that I'd like to have something on there that says whatever we can, and I'd like Rochelle or Chris or whomever, is there anything else that we can do as we push this along to say to the Council we're doing this because there's no other option that we see, but this is something that needs to be addressed. It's been delayed for, I guess, as Mr. Booth put, 15-plus years. Your description of the exaction fees helps a great deal to understand why it's not done, but it didn't make it right. And if we can do something to try to move the dial to making it right in the capacity that we have here, I think we should do it. And I know for certain that if I'm on the commission, well, if I'm on the commission 15 years, shoot me. But the person that's sitting here in 15 years, if this comes back, they're not going to read the minutes, even if they can find them. So I think we should document something on the next piece of paper that's going to come forward to staff to evaluate, just to remind everybody, as Frank Elpoint put it, we're holding our nose on this. I don't think we can do anything different by the rules that we're given, but that doesn't make it right, and I don't think we should allow that. So if we – Chris, you're nodding at me, so I hope you've got a solution. Two suggestions, and I just had a little sidebar with Mr. Penn, and I'll open that up for everybody. First of all, I think, of course, you know we have very detailed minutes of our meeting, so the record of this conversation, discussion, will be well documented in the future in the minutes. The other thing the Commission can do, of course, by separate motion, of course, and you will do whatever you do on this plan, but separately from that, you, of course, as a body can communicate your concerns to the Council. If you are interested in doing that, we would be glad to try to draft a letter for the Commission to consider and take action on to forward to the Council expressing your concern and urging them to do whatever they can to put this critical infrastructure in place that has languished for all these years. Eunice, I know you're up next. Can I finish my thought, though? Thank you, Chris. I like that idea. I still want to put something on here if it's possible. Do we have something that we can put on here as a note that would be on the documentation that would come next? I understand your comment about the minutes, but I can speak for myself, and I think most people, the minutes don't get read ten years down the road. Mr. Wilson? I'm sorry. I'm trying to find that. Okay. No, I know he's working. Oh, we're over here. I understand, but I just want to hear the answer. It's my understanding that as this property redevelops, it will have to meet all of our standards and infrastructure requirements and access points commensurate with the proposed redevelopment. I think part of my concern in trying to add a note without knowing for what use this may eventually redevelop is that we can't foresee what the demand or intensity of a future redevelopment may be. I think the plan acknowledges that there is a proposed extension to Polo Club. I mean, clearly there is a history where if a gas station were to go there, because that plan was in place before, it showed other access points and vehicular traffic patterns and such. I would also be very concerned about putting on a note that in any way said, well, we don't really think this is in compliance, but we're passing it in the interim. I think that sets up a precedent that kind of really concerns me for the next applicant to come in and say, well, I know I really don't read everything, but after all, you let this one go through. I think that what the staff is saying is that for the minimal intensity and development that's taking place, this is adequately compliant with the requirements. And I think that everybody is very well aware that you could not in any way authorize an intense development of this piece of land with the infrastructure as it is now. If somebody had come in and wanted a gas station now without the Polo Club Boulevard built and all the appropriate safety access points, I think staff would have recommended no. The infrastructure isn't there. It is not ready for this kind of development. And it kind of seems like what's being proposed here is a very good compromise to allow a property owner to get a reasonable use of their property without creating an extremely dangerous situation prior to the infrastructure that will support intensity. So I'm just very concerned about what kind of a note we could put on there that might cause problems in the future simply because we can't anticipate what future proposals may be. We have a shot at it, though. I'm going to let Mr. Sally read. We can maybe even put it up. We'll try and put this on the overhead and take a shot. Let's see if this gets the sentiment. This would be a note applied to the development plan. Can we darken it just a bit, please? This is our only copy. Redevelopment of the CC area will be evaluated by the Planning Commission in terms of temporary and permanent access and the timing of road construction in the area. And in parentheses, review PC Minutes of June 14, 2012. Okay. Mr. Brewer. Yeah, okay. Thank you very much. I like that. Now, Rochelle, are you cool with that? Yeah, I think in essence that— Let me put that more appropriately. Is legal an approval of this? Absolutely. I think it just basically states and puts in writing and on notice what I've said, that future development is going to have to meet the requirements of its intensity and that the Planning Commission is going to consider it appropriately. I think that's great. Okay. Mr. Cravens, would you amend your motion to include that? Well, I think that you're just saying that you want that added to the plan, and I made a motion to approve the plan, so I think it's covered. All right, I'll back up. Would somebody tell us how we get this on there? Mr. Watson? I'll accept it. Paul, I'm a humanitarian. Why did it do? Well, I've got two conflictions here. I'd like to say something first. Yes, you may say. You were on, you were off, you were on, you were off. Well, I did, and I guess I like this, except if I read this 15 years from now, it says it will be evaluated. Why don't we say it will be done before any other additional whatever it is that has to be in any other construction in that area? Could we not simply say that we expect the city or the county in some way or form or fashion to live up to its commitment of making that the way it should have been 17 years ago? I guess that's the question. Is that overstepping our boundaries as such? You think it is? Okay. I think it may be. Well, help me out. Why is it? I mean. Well, I'm not trying to hold her. That's just not appropriate for her. I'm not trying to hold her hostage. I think we can move on with that particular piece. I'm simply, we are putting this in on a note for future development, right? Ms. Blanton. But we can't compel the city to spend that money on Polo Club Boulevard. And so then if the city doesn't spend that money, then the property owner is stuck with not being able to do anything. So, I mean, we just can't force the city to spend millions of dollars on a road that's just not under our purview. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, we've been doing an awful lot of talk about her redevelopment, and she just bought it. I mean, are you planning on selling it and redeveloping it? And then what you don't see on this polo club is maybe a quarter of a mile on down the road, it hits a real major snag where it doesn't tie into itself again, where it crosses Deer Haven. And that's maybe a $3 million bridge to cross that. That's probably more of a holdup than this part, what you're not seeing there. I call for the question. Is my motion there? Question has been called for. Yes, sir. That's parliamentary. It's parliamentary now. Yes, sir. Mikey, if you want to, you want to include that as a part of your motion. Yes. He does. Ended motion. I don't really, but I'll accept it. Well, if you do. I mean, I think you're trying to make a development plan do too much. It's got enough notes on there. But I'll accept it since it's okay. Okay. If that's the case, you know how to get that. So he is willing to include that in his motion. And Ms. Blanton, fine as a second. So a question has been called, so I'm not even going to ask for further discussion. Let's go for a vote. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? Motion passes. Mr. Penn? I'd like to follow up on Mr. King's suggestion that we send a letter to the Council telling them of what our situation is with this, why we approved it the way we did, but that the exaction fees have been paid, and the only way that we can straighten out several safety issues there is to build Todd's Road and or Polar Club Boulevard, and that we would encourage them to look seriously at doing that. I can make it in a motion if the rest of the commissioners want to do that. I would just make a statement because I would like to have a form of a motion. I would like a form of a motion, yes. Then I move what I just said. I second what you just said. Motion's been made and seconded for a letter to go to the council in regards to, I think we should indicate Palo Club Boulevard since Todd's Road is a state road. Mr. King? That's appropriate, and I think the appropriate venue would be for staff to draft a letter for review by the commission. Yes. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. Further discussion? Ms. Beatty? I would just like to say, I know we've spent a lot of time discussing this, but I think that this discussion is very necessary because as a planning commission member, this really puts you in a very awkward position when you feel like you're not able to make a decision, the right decision, but you have to make a decision, if that made sense. I think it does. And so I think that putting something in writing that allows our voice to be heard another way to the council is very appropriate, because having to vote on this was very, very uncomfortable. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. As far as thinking about long-term, are you doing what's right for the planning for the city? Thank you, Ms. Beatty. Mr. Wilson. I agree with Ms. Beatty wholeheartedly. I think we're doing things right, but I'm not sure we're doing the right thing. And to that end, I would acquiesce to all other conversations. Thank you. Mr. Burrow. All right. I'm glad we're done with this. I'd like to thank, first of all, the staff, but legal traffic, everybody who helped us with this. But I'd like to make a special comment to the Booth family. I believe I got the name right, so I apologize. But I'm probably the more impatient one of my colleagues up here. And when you started talking about an education or history lesson, I was just about to walk. I'm glad you did because I would have not had anywhere near the idea of the longstanding problems that have been part of this in the past. So thank you all for coming in. Ms. Copeland. When the letter is written, could we quantify to the smallest area of the Polo Club Boulevard that needs to be improved so that we aren't asking them to do so many miles but just half a mile maybe? The only portions that remain to be done is the connection between Todd's Road on up to where part was constructed and then the part that goes across Deer Haven. All the rest of it is in place. Okay. Okay, we do have a motion and a second for a letter to be sent to the council. If there's no further discussion, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Moving on, our next... What I'm going to do here, I think we've got two things. One, a performance, releasing call of bonds to approve. If anyone's willing to make a motion, it's in front of you. Have everyone's attention, please. Yes, I'm sorry. There you are. Ms. Blanton. I move approval of the release and call of bonds from the memorandum dated June 14, 2012. Thank you. Is there a second? The motion has been made and a second for the release and call of bonds memorandum. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. We've got a couple of members asking for a short break. We'll take just a very short recess. I'll try and be back there in five minutes. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll ask everyone to turn to their seats and we'll get started, restarted, reconvened. Mike, I don't think you're objective. Thank you. Beginning of the meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Chairman stated, the next plan on your agenda is item E on page 8. It is DP 2012-39, Deerfield Shopping Center, also known as Ollie's Trolley, amended. This is a development located on Southland Drive. We're moving a long way from the edge of town, the expansion area, back into the heart of town. And as a bit of history, Southland Drive showed up on the Seagull plan back in the 30s. So it was at one time envisioned as a bypass for the city of Lexington. the plan that you have before you today is an amendment to the existing development plan again here is south and drive goodrich avenue is in this location nicholasville road would be back here towards me and of course as you went down this way you would head towards rosemont garden This is south of Bowling Lanes, former home of the Rebel Room. Mr. Penn knew that very well. The purpose of this amendment is to propose an auto parts store in this location, 6,600 square feet. Again, here's your existing bowling alley. This is the bank. This was subject of an amendment a few years ago, around 2001. You can see the associated parking. There are 247 spaces on the development that does meet the requirement with a slight overage of the combination of the uses. They are proposing to use the existing access point in this location. The plan you see before you is a revision. Initially, staff had recommended postponement to the subdivision committee. There was concern about the split zoning. As you look at that rendering, you can see the little bit of orange and a little bit of the red on the proposed building. The two lots in front where the bank is located and where this auto parts store is proposed, There's some B3 zoning in that location along with the B1. Overall the site is predominantly B1. That's what happened back in the Ollie's Trolley's day with John Y. Brown Jr. He had those rezoned to B3 anticipating he was going to place one of those restaurants on one side or the other. It was never built as you probably know and instead now we do have a bank in that location. The staff has handed out a revised recommendation to you, and again, as I said, initially the concern and the postponement was concern whether or not the B-3, the auto parts use, was allowable in the B-1. Pardon me, it is allowable in the B-3, and there was some concern about that. Staff conferred with the applicant with building inspection. We are very confident that the use is allowable in the zone and has been interpreted that way in the past and for a considerable amount of time by building inspection. A big part of that relates to the fact that service stations were allowed in the B-1 zone, and they sold parts themselves. They provided kind of routine maintenance for our automobiles. I know some of you may recall that, when they could do that. The auto parts store will, in fact, like many others, provide some of those same services. They'll put a battery in for you. They'll put windshield wipers on for you. That sort of thing. But it was a concern of the use that, again, gave us the first hesitation on the plan. Now, just to address some of the basic cleanup conditions that exist on your handout, is that we have our standard sign-offs for development plans, you can see. We also need some cleanup information. We need all the information added that was lost from the previous development plan. We need for them to designate the height to the building. They're telling us it's one story. When we say that, we actually mean in feet. We want to know how tall it is. So that is a cleanup condition they need to meet. Again, we're asking for some addition of information on the plan. You can see that they have addressed some of the conditions, one of which was to add the floodplain information back on this plan. Southland Drive, in this area particularly, has a huge regulatory FEMA floodplain and floodway, according to the maps. And it actually extends across Southland Drive. I don't know how many of you remember Fork Bank when that development came in. The floodplain actually extended across the road to the front of that property. This area has floodway, and that is highly, highly regulated and requires special permits and appeals to the floodplain appeals committee and that sort of thing to build in it. It is staff's understanding that a CLOMER has been submitted to FEMA. I know you all hear that acronym a lot, but that is a conditional letter of map revision, and that will modify the regulatory floodway and floodplain in this area. that has been submitted to FEMA. That will have to be accepted and certified and official before they can build in this area. The other conditions you see on your Plan 13 and 14 arise out of our concern about the use. and I just realized after that last long discussion I forgot to hand something out to you. In the folder you will find a paper copy of the prohibited conditions on this plan. While he's handing those out, I'll explain those. And again, I apologize for not handing those out earlier. In 1985 or so, I believe, yes, 85, when this plan was originally rezoned, they didn't have conditional zoning. So they placed on it development plan notes, and these are these prohibited uses. Of course, as you all know, that's very common now with conditional zoning to add prohibited uses. They did so back then just as development plan note. Interesting enough, they didn't show up on that development plan. They were picked up and caught later and put on a later development plan. So they are here today. You see them before you. There are two small little issues with these notes that staff and the applicant were concerned could create problems in enforcement and interpretation for the auto sales. And that is, you can see it up above you, note number two, where it states, establishments and lots for the display rental sale service and minor repair of farm equipment, contractor equipment. The last little phrase, and that's directly from your ordinance, that last little phrase that I've underlined for you there says, or supplies for such items. The applicant and staff was concerned that that would not allow the sale of car parts, auto parts. So we are recommending that that be deleted from the prohibited notes. The next one, number three, minor automobile and truck repair. That is allowable in the B3. There is B3 zoning here. We are recommending that that be deleted from the prohibited notes, again, to avoid any confusion over the nature of the work that they might perform at the auto parts store. Again, as we all know, they pull batteries in and out. They will do windshield wipers and that sort of thing, and we wouldn't want what really are maintenance sort of activities to be construed as minor repair and perhaps create enforcement problems, problems for the applicant and problems for the community as well. So with that, staff has reviewed this, made our revised recommendations, and are recommending approval of the plan. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am. Yes. So in other words, we're taking off 11, 12, and 13, 11 and 12, because the floodplain information is on this new plan? Yes, ma'am. The floodplain information is referenced by a note. It's so extensive you couldn't graphically show it. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing the owners of the property. The owner of the property is a company owned by the Collins family, which operates Collins Bowling Center. Danny Collins is with me today, who operates Collins Bowling Center. and his brother Robbie was at the subdivision committee, if you remember him. And we appreciate the staff meeting with us. They did have a concern over the use because auto parts is not specifically mentioned in the B-1 zone. And we met with them and we talked to Dewey Crow. Dewey confirmed that, yes, for the last 40 years they've interpreted sale of merchandise in B-1, which is allowed to include sale of automobile parts. And I think there was some concern as to whether this facility would be a regional warehouse for other CarQuest stores. And CarQuest, when I raised that with them, they sort of laughed and said, well, we have that up on Georgetown Road. They have a 100,000-square-foot, state-of-the-art distribution facility, which serves not only the stores in Lexington, but also all of Kentucky, all of Tennessee, and part of Virginia. And they said, we have a substantial investment in Lexington, and we do our distribution out on Georgetown Road. And so this will be a new CarQuest auto parts store here. And we're aware of the LOMER question that is stated on the development plan, and I'm told that we are seeking a LOMER rather than a CLOMER, a letter of map revision rather than a conditional letter of map revision. A little minor technicality there on it. And on the development plan notes, we appreciate staffs working with us on the last two items on their revision, revising those notes because, you know, occasionally these auto parts stores do install a windshield wiper, blinkers, and batteries, and that sort of thing. We want to make sure that that's not prohibited on this. It looks like back 25 years ago when Ollie's Trolley came in here, or they didn't come in here. I wish they had, but they never did, but they got their zone change. It looks like they were trying to prohibit used car lots on this property from coming in, and that's the best thing we can determine. So this will allow the auto parts store to function as all the other auto parts stores do in this community. Thank you very much, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Ms. Plumley. Tell me again, if you would, please, about the letter from FEMA. Yeah, this property is in the floodplain now. I'm not sure it always has been, but in one of the revisions that FEMA made, it was put in. Maybe it has been in the past, perhaps. But we are required to seek a letter of map revision, which is essentially an amendment to the floodplain through FEMA, before we can start construction on this. And much as I think Fork Bank probably had done, that was the bank you were mentioning across the street, obtained one, we have to obtain that, and we have a note on the development plan stating that we have to obtain that before we can start construction on the building here. So we're aware that Mr. Carter's vision engineering has already applied for that through FEMA, and that is in the process. And I believe that one part of the process in getting that through FEMA is that the city engineering department has to sign off on that, and I believe they already have signed off on that, and so the application is in to FEMA at this point. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Carter says. I forgot to introduce Matt Carter with Vision Engineering and Chaz Height, who is a planner who works with me as well. Any other questions? If not, anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? If not, thank you, Mr. Murphy. I will close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Yes, Ms. Copeland. I think it's great that we're having this kind of development on Southland Drive, and I wish to make a motion unless someone objects. Go right ahead. I move for approval of DP 2012-39 and the 14 conditions on our revised ground sheet. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval and seconded. There's no further discussion. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you. Our next item, I'm going to take something a little bit out of order and let Mr. Cayley, I believe, get back to work hopefully a few minutes sooner. page 9, no, not page 9, where did I go here? Page 11 under a staff item. It's plan 2012-48C Lexingtonian Estates. Let the staff make their presentation. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The item that you see before you under staff items is a Plan 2012-48C. It is a consolidation plat. which is a minor plaid under your regulations that we are referring to you today. It's a little interesting, and I got to use several colors to help illustrate what you see before you today. The Lexingtonian Estates is a R1B subdivision located on the south side of Ursell's Road, headed out past New Circle. New Circle is right back here. Lexingtonian is on your left. It's a gated community. There's a circular drive here. There's an old historic house that sits in this location, and I forget the name of it, frankly, the house. There's a large city park back that way towards Parker's Mill Road to try to get you to know where you are. Calumet is across the road here on Vercels Road. This subdivision was approved by this body, created a series of R1B lots, again with this circular drive. There had been one consolidation plat subsequently filed that kind of adjusted some lot lines and moved a few things around, but left the character principally the same. What you see here before you today on this consolidation plat is this yellow outlines the lot that this plat will create. leaving the green as the remnant, and they wish to designate this as an HOA non-buildable lot. Now, that's routinely done by the Planning Commission when you see the overall plan. And in fact, when you saw this preliminary settlement plan and when you saw the record plots for this plan, there were other non-buildable lots. There was one associated with a sinkhole down in this location, and right up in here, that's an HOA lot. They are not, this one is not large enough, or it's constricted and not buildable. This one isn't large enough, and that's the issue that we had. The lot, as originally approved, was a buildable lot. It was an R1B lot. This consolidation will reduce it to below. This remnant will be too small, will not meet the R1B standards. Therefore, we're bringing it to you today for your approval, and so you can officially act on it designated as HOA in a non-buildable lot. And that's why we're referring it to you today. Questions for Mr. Martin? I've got one. Tom, has this ever occurred in the past as far as taking a lot and, in essence, splitting it, consolidating it to another lot and leaving half of it as a non-buildable lot? No, sir. Not on a minor plan. No, sir. They are only non-billable lots are designated on final record plans. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Kaley? I guess I'm in agreement with staff's recommendation. Is it recommended to approval? It just needs your blessing. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Questions for Mr. Kaley? I've got one, Rory. With what is being proposed currently, is that part, was it part of the original lot? Is it built on, is there a swimming pool there? Yes. Reasons? Yes. The whole property has developed about 13 buildable lots. One gentleman came in, bought the whole development. He's since consolidated down to where he would have less neighbors. He has taken ownership of all of it. But the old house in the center here, he had a buildable lot for his house. There was a buildable lot behind it, which was the pool and a more open area. He has decided that he'd like to have the pool be attached to the lot that he has as a house, not have anyone behind him in the future and make an HOA lot. If he doesn't want somebody behind him in the future, why didn't he just take the whole lot? I don't know. I didn't ask the question. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Anyone else? I don't see anyone in the audience. So I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any other discussion Second and or motion. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Blanton. Move approval of Plan 2012-48C Lexingtonian Estates. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2012-48C. If there's no further discussion, which I see none, vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Next would be Ms. Wade on a tax amendment. Very long, tax amendment. He didn't want to take all of his swimming pool. He didn't want somebody else to do it. Oh, swimming pool. Swimming pool's the reason he did it. No, swimming pool's the reason he did it. He took it in. Well, if they're going to swim in it, let them take care of it. No, they throw him much behind. He's, he's, the poo's already there. To his house, yeah. Ms. Wade. Ms. Wade. Chairman Owens, members of the commission. The final item on your agenda today is ZODA 2012-7. This is a text amendment that was initiated by the Urban County Council to amend notification requirements for conditional use applications. You do have a packet at your place in lieu of your notebook today, and it is a Brown staff report. with the resolution from council attached, second page, a separate sheet which says Kentucky revised statutes and highlighting on the back which shows what the state law does require for conditional use permits. And then the third sheet is something that the staff handed out to the zoning committee last week with some case study information. As I mentioned, the council initiated this text amendment in April, and it is to increase the notification area for conditional use permits and also for administrative appeals within the zoning ordinance. That would be amending Article 7-5 of the ordinance. And the second half is also to, I didn't include that there, is also to require notice to at least one neighborhood association or homeowners association. Currently, the Kentucky Revised Statutes, which is KRS 100-237, subsection 6, requires notice to adjoining property owners only, and only when the subject property actually adjoins a residential zone. So the state law is very minimal, and our ordinance currently requires the 400-foot mail notice to property owners around a property where a conditional use application is being sought. Since the Council initiated this in April, the Planning Commission had 60 days to review the application, and your time limit will expire June 18th, so today is our last chance to have the hearing on this particular text amendment. The Division of Proposed Text Amendment to increase the notice from 400 feet to 800 feet to provide written notification to a neighborhood association regardless of distance, and also to notify only the associations that are duly registered with the government through our Office of Geographic Information Systems. Currently, the government has, our Division of Planning has a neighborhood association database that we have established and keep updated. The purpose of that is to notify neighborhood associations regarding zone changes, text amendments, conditional uses and variance applications with the Board of Adjustment, and also for the comprehensive plan. That's just in terms of what the Division of Planning uses that information for. Other divisions within the government use that information to notify neighborhood associations about other activities as well. So it is utilized quite a bit. The database is available online, so the regular citizenry can also access information about who their neighborhood association president is, too. Currently, the neighborhood association database has about 250 neighborhoods that are registered. About 10% do not have a mapped boundary. This is a map of what neighborhood associations we do have that are mapped, And there are some that overlap, and there are some gaps in places where subdivisions exist, but they don't have a neighborhood association that's registered or mapped. Or they may have one, but it's not mapped. And then there are also homeowners associations that exist, perhaps for new neighborhoods that haven't been turned over to the neighborhood residents yet. and so they usually aren't included in our database until that happens. There are also some countywide organizations such as the Fayette Alliance or the Neighborhood Council that are countywide so they aren't mapped as well. And then there's another probably 10 or 20 neighborhood associations we have on our list, but they are inactive. So sometimes they form to oppose a zone change or a conditional use permit, and then once that case has been heard, they kind of dissolve or become inactive. The Lexington Fayette County government has provided neighborhood associations notice as a courtesy to date, and they have provided property owners notice within a 400-foot boundary since the 1970s for conditional use permits and zone changes. and then those requirements were put into the zoning ordinance in the 1980s, and they've remained unchanged since that time. The staff is supportive of increased notification. However, we did have some concerns. First, the cost with a Board of Adjustment application, the cost of mailing notice is borne by the applicant themselves, and in a lot of cases those are citizens who are proposing to run a daycare or have a home business and it can be excessive cost associated with that and in some cases would double the cost for them. Second, the ordinance currently treats zone changes and conditional uses equally, and this would change that to put some greater importance for conditional uses, and that's really not, I don't think, what we want to convey. They're both important. If not, zone changes are the first step in the process. They might have a little bit higher importance, too. Third, establishing this creates some issues with identifying the nearest neighborhood association because that can be subjective. In some recent zone changes we've had, there are multiple neighborhood associations nearby or adjacent, and by requiring notice to just one, that becomes an issue. And in some cases it can be difficult to identify which is the closest when there may be a great distance between some of them. In any case, the planning staff has done our best to always notify neighborhood associations that are in close proximity per the council resolution to do so. So fourth, the proposed text amendment is a little concerning because there are no rules for neighborhood associations. It's just a database that we keep to help us provide information to the community as a whole. And as I mentioned earlier, there are some that overlap, some gaps, so it's not a perfect system. since the text was initiated and we first began reviewing it the staff looked into in greater detail some past cases so in 2011 there were 36 conditional use cases that the board of adjustment heard the staff understands because we work in this every day that as the distance increases from a property that the level of concern about a use typically decreases or dissipates. The communities are, when we looked at the 2011 cases and applied what the council was suggesting, an 800-foot notice, if you look at the handout that the staff prepared in terms of mail notice and cost, The first case, the 400-foot notice requires seven mailed notices at a cost of $3.29, and it increases to 10, which is very nominal. But some of the other ones, as you look down at 201 North Mill Street in an urban area, inside our infill and redevelopment area, 400-foot notice would require 77 letters to be mailed, whereas 800 feet, you would require 236 letters be mailed. So just a few examples here of current cases that the board will have before them coming up. We applied the 400-foot current buffer to it and then the 800-foot buffer, and the staff looked at, well, what about some other numbers? and 500 was one that made some sense in terms of an increase, but not an increase that was unbearable for the cost. This one increased it from 98 properties to 259 or 130 with the 500-foot buffer. Case 2 about doubled it when you went to 800 feet. Case 3 almost tripled it in terms of notice that would be required. Let me go back to that. The 800-foot notice increased the cost and number of properties that would need written notification by 172% on average when we looked at the 2011 cases. A 500-foot notice would increase the cost and letters mailed by 32%. So that seemed more reasonable to the staff, and the staff would suggest instead of an 800-foot notice area, a 500-foot notice area. The second, one of the other concerns that the staff had was with the idea of a duly registered neighborhood association, and that would need to be registered not with just GIS but also with the Division of Planning, and I think that needs to be part of the text. The staff did include that in our alternative text. And also that in terms of neighborhood association notice, again, we do our best to notify the neighborhood associations within close proximity of an application. But the staff alternative would be to notify a registered neighborhood association if it falls within the 500-foot notice area, much like the property owners. So in some cases, there may not be a neighborhood association that falls within that area, but we would still do our best to identify the closest and do that courtesy mailing. And then the third thing that the staff would suggest in terms of making an improvement to the council or to maybe offset the increased distance that they want to do, and we're suggesting 500 instead, would be to post a sign on the property with zone changes, expansion area plans, and agricultural subdivisions. The staff or the applicant will place a sign of a certain height and size and with letters so tall so that property owners nearby, as well as anyone driving by, can see that that property is the subject of a public hearing. And the staff would suggest that we post a sign. This would be a new type of assignment that states that there's a conditional use application and the date and time of the hearing for that particular location. The staff really feels that this is a more effective notice than mailed notice. Obviously, mailed notice is received by only those people who appear on the list, and it's effective for the people who do receive it because it comes right to your door. but in terms of notifying the greatest number of people, really the sign does an excellent job of doing that. It notifies property owners, neighborhood associations, and also non-owner residents that there's a conditional use permit and that the staff really thinks that addresses the true goal of the council's text amendment. So the staff and the zoning committee both are recommending approval of the staff alternative text, and there were two findings that the staff put in place. They should appear on your agenda as well as on the staff report, and the first addresses the goal number one of the 2007 comprehensive plan, which states that we should provide planning processes, processes which enable widespread citizen participation and benefit the community. And the staff feels that the alternative will do that very well. And then secondly, the text amendment would increase notice to neighborhood property owners, neighborhood associations, and also anyone that would be driving by with the sign. And those all are for the advancement of, obviously, public participation for the Board of Adjustment in their public hearings. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this text amendment. Thank you, Ms. White. Any questions for Tracy? Yes, ma'am? What is the posted date for a zone change? Is it 14 days or 21? It is. The zone change notices are required to be posted at least 14 days. It would be consistent with that. Any other questions? Tracy, I've got one follow-up to what was just asked. 21 days for mailing notifications, but yet just 14 days for signage. Is there a reason for that? You know, I think it almost appears to me to be kind of a tiered approach where the mail notice goes out and then the notice on the property happens, and then the next week there's a notice in the newspaper. So it kind of hits all three in sort of a different time frame. I would say longer than 14 days it becomes difficult to keep the signs in good condition and on the property. Often they get blown down or weathered. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Owens, I would also add the KRS 100 requires the zone change sign to be on 14 days. We just think it would be good to be consistent with that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes. Go for it. I move for approval of staff alternative for tax for staff and the zoning committee. With the two bindings. Yes, this is. Resoda 2-0-12-7. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Staff alternative text with two reasons. Findings, is there a second? Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. The staff would note that we will probably ask the commission to initiate a text amendment, if this passes the council, to match the zoning notice to the Board of Adjustment Conditional Use Notice so that they would remain the same. So if it gets approved at 500, the staff would initiate a text amendment to 500. If it gets approved at 800, we would likely initiate that as well. Well, let's bring it back to us at that time. Thank you. I've got one other item as far as a commission item. According to our bylaws that we amended and passed just the last few months, this is the first week of June, and we need to elect a nominating committee to bring us back recommendations for officers. So the bylaws do state three commission members, and at this time I'll ask for volunteers. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. I volunteer. Okay, we've got three. Mr. Wilson, Mr. Cravens, and Mr. Penn. We would need a motion for those three, if that's acceptable to everyone. I move that we accept. Oh, he was in my ear. I'm sorry, he was in my ear. I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am? Was that a motion? Yes. Okay, motion's been made and seconded. for approval of Mr. Penn, Mr. Cravens, and Mr. Wilson to serve on the nominating committee. Please vote when it comes up. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry we did not get the second on the motion. Oh, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. The motion passes, and I would ask if Mr. Penn would serve as the chairperson, I guess, for the nominating committee, since he would be of only senior status in terms of time served on this commission. I ain't going to touch that, but I could. When do you want to report back, Mr. Chairman? Thank you. According to our bylaws, you need to report back at our next work session, which is in one week. Thank you for all the time. That's according to our bylaws. That should have been discussed a little while back. Mr. King. I believe that just stole the thunder from my announcement to remind you that you have a work session next Thursday. Thank you. We've been talking about it, so come with your sleeves rolled up, I believe, on the comprehensive plan. Yes, ma'am. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. And seconded. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Yeah, done. I'm hoping to get the area. How many times must I say I love you?