# Planning Commission Meeting - September 13, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 13, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2690 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2690?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-09-13 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 8,195 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on September 13, 2012, at 1:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting. The Commission considered seven agenda items, took seven votes, and heard five public comments during the session. All seven items on the agenda were approved. These included a consent agenda for preliminary subdivision plans; final subdivision plans for the New Market Property (Phase I, Unit 9) and the Blackford Property (Phase I, Unit 5-A); development plans for the Sebastian Property (Unit 2), General Telephone Company (Lot 5), and Watts Farm (Tract 4); and a zoning ordinance text amendment (ZOTA 2012-13) regarding the transfer of enforcement of sign ordinance regulations. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, Karen Mundy, Carla Blanton, William Wilson, Chris King, Bill Sallee, Tom Martin, Chris Taylor, Cheryl Gallt, Dave Jarman, Traci Wade, Denice Bullock, Hillard Newman, Captain Charles Bowen, Jeff Neal, Tim Queary, and Tracy Jones. **Absent:** Patrick Brewer, Carolyn Plumlee, Mike Cravens, and Frank Penn. **Late:** Eunice Beatty. ## Votes and Decisions All motions passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes or abstentions. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 0:16:50] The board approved a consent agenda of six preliminary subdivision plans, two final subdivision plans, and nine development plans. Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Karen Mundy. All seven board members voted in favor: Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Eunice Beatty, Karen Mundy, Carla Blanton, and William Wilson. **Plan 2012-90F: New Market Property, Phase I, Unit 9** [timestamp: 0:32:45] The board approved the final subdivision plan with waivers for substantial completion, street tree, and tree canopy requirements. Motion by William Wilson, seconded by Carla Blanton. All seven board members voted in favor. **Plan 2012-91F: Blackford Property, Phase I, Unit 5-A** [timestamp: 0:43:34] The board approved the final subdivision plan with 15 conditions including denoting buildable lots by zone, clarifying tree canopy requirements, depicting sinkhole-related non-buildable areas, limiting Phase 1, Unit 5 to no more than 92 buildable lots, adding a 20-foot easement for Kentucky Utilities, and adding sinkhole-related notes. Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Eunice Beatty. All seven board members voted in favor. **DP 2012-60: Sebastian Property, Unit 2** [timestamp: 0:54:13] The board approved the development plan with 17 conditions including findings on access easements, waivers for substantial completion and street continuity, documentation of site triangle compliance, expansion of HOA notes for dumpster areas, and detailing of VUA screening. Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Eunice Beatty. All seven board members voted in favor. **DP 2012-72: General Telephone Company, Lot 5** [timestamp: 1:00:47] The board approved the development plan amendment with conditions to add tree information and document landscaping compliance. Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Eunice Beatty. All seven board members voted in favor. **DP 2012-73: Watts Farm, Tract 4** [timestamp: 1:05:46] The board approved the development plan amendment with conditions to revise floor area statistics and correct required open space percentages. Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Eunice Beatty. All seven board members voted in favor. **ZOTA 2012-13: Sign Ordinance Enforcement Transfer** [timestamp: 1:09:02] The board approved a text amendment transferring enforcement of sign ordinance regulations from Building Inspection to the Division of Planning. Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Karen Mundy. All seven board members voted in favor. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the board with clarification questions regarding various aspects of the applications under review. Lynn Roche-Phillips asked for clarification on why the Family Center application appeared twice on the agenda—once as a final record plat and once as a development plan. She was informed that these were separate applications for the same property. [timestamp: 0:15:43] Chris Taylor inquired whether sinkhole-related non-buildable areas constituted a single environmental feature crossing the road. He was told that the sinkholes were denoted as non-buildable areas for construction purposes but were not a single unified feature. [timestamp: 0:39:11] William Wilson asked how close the 20-foot utility easement would be to the tree protection area. He was assured that there was sufficient space within the 70-foot buffer to avoid conflict between the two. [timestamp: 0:40:15] Eunice Beatty sought clarification on the condition limiting Phase 1, Unit 5 to 92 buildable lots. She was informed that this limitation was intended to prevent exceeding the approved development plan density without requiring an amendment. [timestamp: 0:41:51] Rory Kaley asked whether required landscaping must be installed before the new parking lot is constructed. He was told that Building Inspection would verify compliance prior to certification. [timestamp: 0:59:05] ## Contested Items **Waiver of Substantial Completion Requirement** The commission addressed a request to waive the substantial completion requirement for New Market Property. Initially, staff recommended postponing the item due to concerns about the lack of a waiver review process. However, after further discussion, staff and the applicant confirmed that bonding was in place and clarified that the waiver was necessary to allow the school board to take title to the property. Following this confirmation, the commission approved the waiver despite the initial split on the recommendation. **Density Increase in Blackford Property** The proposed density increase for Blackford Property generated heated discussion among commission members. Commissioners raised concerns about the density levels being proposed for the development. Rather than rejecting the proposal outright, the commission imposed a conditional approval, requiring the applicant to limit Phase 1, Unit 5 to no more than 92 buildable lots. The condition specified that any increase beyond this limit would require the applicant to submit an amended development plan for further review and approval. ## Consent Agenda: Preliminary Subdivision Plans Six preliminary subdivision plans were approved by consent agenda during this meeting. The plans included the Sebastian Property (2003-9P), Hillenmeyer Property (2006-250P), Mahan Property (2007-31P), and four additional properties. All six preliminary subdivision plans were recommended for reapproval with revised conditions by the Subdivision Committee. The key speakers on this item were Bill Sallee and Mike Owens. The consent agenda item was approved. [timestamp: 0:10:33] ## Final Subdivision Plan: New Market Property, Phase I, Unit 9 (2012-90F) **Overview** This agenda item addressed the final subdivision plan for the New Market Property, Phase I, Unit 9, identified as case number 2012-90F. The plan pertained to a 15-acre school site intended for the Fayette County School Board. **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and Rory Kaley presented and discussed this item. **Presentation and Outcome** Staff recommended approval of the final subdivision plan with a bonding condition. The plan was approved with three waivers: - Substantial completion - Street trees - Tree canopy The approval allowed the Fayette County School Board to take title of the 15-acre school site. **Meeting Details** This discussion occurred at approximately 17 minutes and 27 seconds into the meeting [timestamp: 0:17:27]. ## Final Subdivision Plan: Blackford Property, Phase I, Unit 5-A (2012-91F) The board discussed and approved the Final Subdivision Plan for the Blackford Property, Phase I, Unit 5-A (case number 2012-91F) [timestamp: 0:34:09]. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Chris Taylor and Rory Kaley led the discussion on this agenda item. **Staff Recommendation Change** Staff initially recommended postponement of the plan but revised their recommendation to approval after the applicant provided clarifications addressing outstanding concerns. **Approval Conditions** The plan was approved subject to 15 conditions. These conditions addressed the following areas: - Sinkhole denotations - Lot limits - Utility easements - Tree protection areas **Outcome** The Final Subdivision Plan for Blackford Property, Phase I, Unit 5-A was approved with the 15 specified conditions. ## Development Plan: Sebastian Property, Unit 2 (2012-60) The development plan for Sebastian Property, Unit 2 (2012-60) was presented for discussion and approval [timestamp: 0:44:44]. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Chris Taylor, Tom Martin, and Rory Kaley. **Staff Recommendation and Approval** Staff recommended approval of the development plan after the applicant addressed concerns raised during the review process. The plan was ultimately approved with 17 conditions. **Conditions and Findings** The approval included specific findings regarding: - Access easements - Waivers for substantial completion - Street continuity **Issues Addressed** The applicant worked to resolve staff concerns related to: - Conditional uses - Open space requirements **Outcome** The development plan was approved with the 17 conditions noted above. ## Development Plan: General Telephone Company, Lot 5 (2012-72) This agenda item addressed a development plan for General Telephone Company, Lot 5, identified as case 2012-72. [timestamp: 0:56:26] **Key Speakers and Presentation** Chris Taylor and Rory Kaley were the primary speakers on this matter. **Staff Recommendation and Conditions** Staff recommended approval of the development plan contingent upon 11 conditions. A significant aspect of the staff recommendation involved the reinstatement of tree information that had been lost from a prior version of the plan. Additionally, staff required verification of landscaping compliance as part of the approval conditions. **Background** The applicant had restored lost information from the previous plan iteration, which enabled staff to move forward with a favorable recommendation. **Outcome** The development plan was approved with the 11 conditions in place. ## Development Plan: Watts Farm, Tract 4 (2012-73) [timestamp: 1:02:54] The development plan for Watts Farm, Tract 4 (2012-73) was presented for discussion and approval. Key speakers on this item included Chris Taylor and Rory Kaley. Staff recommended approval of the plan after the applicant addressed compliance issues related to lot coverage and floor area requirements. The discussion focused on ensuring the project met all regulatory standards before moving forward. The plan was approved with nine conditions. These conditions included: - Updated floor area statistics - Corrected open space references - Compliance with lot coverage requirements - Compliance with floor area requirements The approval reflected the applicant's willingness to work with staff to resolve the identified issues and bring the project into full compliance with applicable regulations. ## ZOTA 2012-13: Transfer Enforcement of Sign Ordinance Regulations [timestamp: 1:06:54] A text amendment was presented to transfer enforcement of sign ordinance regulations from the Building Inspection department to the Division of Planning. **Presentation and Recommendation** Tracy Wade presented the item to the board. Staff recommended approval of the amendment based on the Division of Planning's active enforcement of sign ordinance regulations since January 1. **Outcome** The text amendment was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Consent Agenda items including six preliminary subdivision plans, two final subdivision plans, and nine development plans - **Plan 2012-90F** — passed: Approval of New Market Property, Phase I, Unit 9 final subdivision plan with waivers for substantial completion, street trees, and tree canopy requirements - **Plan 2012-91F** — passed: Approval of Blackford Property, Phase I, Unit 5-A final subdivision plan with 15 conditions including sinkhole denotations, lot limits, and utility easements - **DP 2012-60** — passed: Approval of Sebastian Property, Unit 2 development plan with 17 conditions, including findings on access easements and waivers for substantial completion and street continuity - **DP 2012-72** — passed: Approval of General Telephone Company, Lot 5 development plan amendment with 11 conditions, including tree information and landscaping compliance - **DP 2012-73** — passed: Approval of Watts Farm, Tract 4 development plan amendment with 9 conditions, including updated floor area statistics and open space references - **ZOTA 2012-13** — passed: Approval of text amendment to transfer enforcement of sign ordinance regulations from Building Inspection to Division of Planning --- ## Full transcript I'm not the memory of you walking If I said I'm still in love with you It's just the tequila talking If I said I'm still in love with you It's just the tequila talking Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Sorry, I've been just a tad bit late. We will get started and call this meeting to order. We have no minutes to approve. So at this time, I'll ask for any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Seeing none, we'll move on. And we've got several items, I believe, that's on our consent agenda today. I'll ask Mr. Salee to walk us through those, and we'll proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. You do have a lengthy agenda, but you also have a lengthy consent agenda this afternoon due to the hard work last week of your subdivision committee. Three items, the first three items on your agenda are preliminary subdivision plans that are recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. They appear on page 1, item A of your meeting agenda, Plan 2003-9P, Sebastian Property Unit 2, Section 2 and Unit 3. This is for property located off of Leastown Road. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 2, item B, Plan 2006-250P, Hillenmeyer Property Unit 1. This is property located on Sandersville Road and Greendale Road. Also the next item on your agenda, page 2, item C, is on the consent agenda. Plan 2007-31P Mayhem Property, located at 4416 Nicholasville Road, a portion of. All three of these plans have slightly different recommendations for re-approval based on the original commission conditions. There are two final subdivision plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. Those appear on page 3, item A of your meeting agenda. Plan 2012-89F, Lansdowne Subdivision Unit 7A, Lot 9, amended. This involves property at 813 Hildeen Road. On page 3, item D of your meeting agenda is the other plat that appears on the consent agenda. It's Plan 2012-92F, an amended final record plat for Family Center, Unit 1A, Lot 5, located at 1114 East New Circle Road. There are five development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that appear on your consent agenda. The first is on page 4, item B of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-69, the Mary Swift and Others property, lots 1 and 2. This is an amended final development plan for property at 175 and 185 Jefferson Street. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 5, item C, is also on the consent agenda, DP 2012-70, an amended final development plan for Family Center, Unit 1A, Lot 5, located at 1114 East New Circle Road. On page 5, item D, of your agenda, DP 2012-71, Bellowood Shopping Center, also known as Tates Creek Shopping Center, Lot 8, amended. and this is an item at 4131 Tates Creek Center Drive, also on your consent agenda. On page 6, item G, DP 2012-74, an amended final development plan for the NDC property, Unit 1B, Lot 18, involving property located at 225 Ruscio Way. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 6, item H, involves DP 2012-75, the George West property, also known as the Howard property, located at 4568 and 4578 Georgetown Road. In addition, there are four items that are recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. These items also involve the posting of a sign and an affidavit of the sign's posting. The staff understands that those affidavits have been submitted. These four items appear on page 6, item I, of your meeting agenda. First one, DP 2004-66, Kingston Hall, Unit 1, involving property at 2175 and 2301 Russell Cave Road. The next item, page 7, item J, on your meeting agenda, is also on the consent agenda, D.P. 2004-67, Kingston Hall Unit 2, also known as East Bridgeford Land and Development Company, for property located off Newtown Pike and Providence Parkway. The final two development plans also are on the consent agenda, page 7, item K, DP 2006-34, the Guest Property Unit 6, for property located at a portion of 770 and 950 Childsburg Road. And the final item on your consent agenda appears on page 8, item L of your meeting agenda, DP 2006-35, the Guest Property Unit 11, located at 480 and 770 Childsburg Road, a portion of. Mr. Chairman, at this time the Commission can consider approval of these items as recommended by your subdivision committee unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the petitioners would ask to remove one of these plans or more for further consideration by the Commission at today's meeting. Thank you. I think we've got a question for Ms. Phillips. I think I just answered that. She just found the answer. Any commission member wish to hear any of these items on the consent agenda? Anyone in the audience? Ms. Phillips. I wanted to ask, we've got DP 2012-70 Family Center Unit 1A Lot 5 amended, listed under final subdivision plans for conditional approval, as well as development plans. Is it both? Yes, there is a record plat proposed for the property and under a separate application and development plan for the same property. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to hear any of these items on the Kassin agenda? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the Kassin agenda as ran. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion for approval of the consent agenda with the three preliminary subdivision plans, two final subdivision plans, and the nine development plans as proposed. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of consent agenda as read. Please vote when he comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. We'll resume the rest of the agenda in order, which takes us to page 3, item 2B, Plan 2012-90L, New Market Property. We do have several pieces of paper in front of you, petitions for waiver of land subdivision regulation in white, yellow, findings for waiver of standards, and then I think that's it. Those are the two additions that we have. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. On page 3 is the first item for your consideration today. It is item B under final subdivision plans. Plan 2012-90F, New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit 9. This is property located out at the intersection of Passage Mound Way and Polo Club Boulevard. I-75 is along this border of the property. Polo Club in this direction would take you towards Todd's Road. You may recall you recently had an amended development plan in that area. That's where you're headed if you head this way. This way, of course, takes you on out Polo Club Boulevard, ultimately, to Man of War. Again, this is an area of the new market development bordered by I-75. Polo Club Passage Mound Way has been constructed and dedicated across Polo Club. There is an area of this development that has been constructed across Polo Club. The plan that you see before you today is a final record plot to create Lot 1, 15 acres, its proposed elementary school site. Lot 2, which is this area in here, which is a greenway and a retention basin. And here is little Lot 3, and this is a little single-family home lot that fronts Ampolo Club Boulevard. You may recall when you approved the preliminary subdivision plan, final development plan for this area a few months ago, we had a discussion about this feature. This is a required stormwater feature under the AMP. It is primarily a detention basin, but it is also part of the greenway system that serves the expansion area. this plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee and initially recommended for postponement that was following the staff recommendation because at that time we had not reviewed the waivers that are the requested with this property the conditions on this plan do include standard plat conditions such as the urban county engineer and traffic, building inspection, addressing, urban forester, the green space planner, again with the large greenway and part of the overall system that's a requirement for lots two and three, and then of course the standard addition of utility easements as required by the utility companies and the urban county traffic engineer. Item eight is to denote the timing of the greenway dedication to the approval of the Planner. That again is a standard condition for expansion area and dedication of greenways as part of the overall system. In addition, 9 is to revise the conditional zoning notes to indicate the Fayette County School Board's exemption from local zoning regulations. As I stated, the 15-acre tract, large tract that you see there, is proposed for an elementary school. The Fayette County school system, being a creature of the state, is exempt from our local regulations. There are several waivers that were requested with this plan, and as your chairman pointed out, they are contained in this white report that you see. The initial waiver that was requested is a request for waiver of substantial completion. That has not been an unusual waiver request in front of this body in recent times. You've had several, and in fact there's another one on today's agenda as well. In general, you're asked to approve this sort of waiver in order to allow the plaque to go to record prior to the completion of public improvements, and that is the case here as well. So, due to timing considerations, state regulations, and issues that the Fayette County School Board has to deal with, they need to take title of the property before they can proceed with things that they need to do prior to constructing the elementary school. the applicant and developer meanwhile is required to build our EAMP structure here the detention they're required to run a sewer line to this lot that will come through this easement that you see highlighted in yellow and then passage mound way has to be constructed and those would normally be done prior to the recordation of a final record plat. They are asking to waive that, again, that's substantial completion, and instead post a bond to cover the cost of these public improvements. That is the general practice that has been followed on these particular waivers. In addition, there is a waiver along this frontage that I highlighted in green for you here. They are asking to waive the street tree requirement. Street trees are required under your subdivision regulations, so it is a waiver request. This request relates to the fact that the school board, when they design a site, they have a landscape plan that they follow. And this landscape plan is based on student safety, teacher safety, that sort of thing. They're very conscientious along those lines. And having to plant street trees could interfere with that overall master landscaping plan that they utilize on their school sites. And I'm sure they could elaborate on that if you would like to hear that today. So that is a waiver as well. So there is also a request for a finding where they're asking this body to grant a waiver of the tree canopy requirement. Now that is a zoning ordinance requirement. It's not a subdivision requirement. Again, because of the landscape plan, they have their own plan and how they're going to do this and how they're going to develop the site. If they were to meet, strictly meet that 30% requirement, it's a lot of trees. and in fact on 15 acres that's four and a half acres of tree canopy when it grows out they would probably have to create some sort of woodlot you know and mass them to meet that and again that goes contrary to their master landscape plan and student security and that sort of thing so that's the other waiver that you've been asked now there is a third waiver and that is a waiver of the bonding In your staff report, staff has recommended approval of the substantial completion waiver subject to a condition, and that is a standard condition from the staff's perspective, and that is the posting of a bond. We have recommended, obviously, disapproval of the request to waive bonding. because obviously if we're recommending bonding, we're not going to turn around and recommend that you waive that requirement. Staff has also recommended approval of the street tree waiver, again, in view of the master landscaping plan that they employ in their school development. That does seem to be an unnecessary requirement in this situation. Staff is also, again, as I stated, recommending that the Planning Commission make a finding, and this is your yellow page, on the waiver of your tree canopy standards in the zoning ordinance. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. And as Mr. Martin mentioned, the main purpose of this plat is to allow us to convey the 15-acre track to the Fayette County Schools so they can start work on the new elementary school in this area. It's needed badly. I understand, as you all know, there's been two or three new elementary schools in this area in the last five years. All of them are already at or over capacity. They even have portable classrooms at one of those. And so there's a great need for this elementary school to serve this portion of the community. And that's why we're here, really, because it's interesting what you learn in doing these things, but the school board, really under state Department of Education guidelines, really can't even hire an architect to start design of this school until they actually own the property. So they have to own the property well in advance of when construction starts. and they need to own it as soon as they can, though, to get the planning process going so that the school opening is not delayed. So in doing that, of course, we cannot convey the land to them until we have the plant recorded. And normally under the bonding requirements, we cannot record the plant until all the streets are done up to the final course of asphalt and the other improvements are completed. And as Mr. Martin mentioned, we had asked for a waiver of the bond altogether. We're not pursuing that. We've talked to the staff, talked to the school board, and we are agreeable to posting the bond for the full cost of the public improvement. So that way the city will be protected in case the worst case happens, in addition to our contract with the school board. So we're not pursuing that request to waive the bond, but we do badly need the waiver of the substantial completion requirement. That would allow us to convey the property to the school board. The road, by the way, is underway right now. We're working real quickly to try to get that done, but it's likely that we're not going to be up to the normal completion level of that in the stormwater facility before we file the plan. So under Mr. Martin's recommendation, which we agree with, If that's the case, we would simply post the bond for the remainder of the cost of doing all those improvements at the time this goes to record. The two tree waivers, as Mr. Martin mentioned, are because of the unique situation the school board has. One is that it is immune from zoning laws anyway, but the bigger one is that it also has to operate under the State Department of Education guidelines, which mandate certain landscape plans which do relate to the safety and security of students and teachers on the site. And so their landscaping issues are a little different from normal city ones. They are going to be landscaping it. They are going to be doing a plan, but it's just going to be different from this. So with those, as we are in agreement with the staff recommendation, we're not pursuing or can withdraw our request to not post a bond at all, but we are agreeable with the other three that the staff has recommended the approval of. That is the waiver of substantial completion so we can post a bond and go to record, the tree canopy waiver and the street tree waiver. And we'd be happy to answer any questions you all have. Questions from Mr. Murphy? Nope. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing then and open it up for any discussion from the Commission members and or a motion. Yes, sir. I'm a little slow. Break this down for me very simply, please. There are three waivers that are being requested, right? Yes, sir. Okay. One on the tree canopy. The other one on the street trees. On the street trees. And then the one other one is the, what's the third one? Certificate of Substantial Completion of the Streets. Okay. Is that something we normally do? We have done. We have done. Yes. Yes. Particularly on the streets, the street trees and tree canopy, I think Mr. Martin described pretty well due to school safety. That's what's driving that. And as Mr. Murphy did say, they have pulled their request for the waiver of the surety itself. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of Plan DP-2012-90-90F with the two waivers requested for the land subdivision regulations as recommended by the staff on the white sheet, deleting, of course, the performance requirement for the waiver request for the performance jury and approval of the findings of fact on the yellow sheet to include the waiver for the tree canopy. Okay. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval, and we do have a second. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, any further discussion? If not, please vote when he comes up on the screen. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next plan is still on page 3, item 2C, 2012-91F, the Blackford property, and we do have revisions, which is on a salmon-colored sheet of paper in front of you. Mr. Taylor. As you mentioned, the next item. It is Plant 2012-91F, Blackford Property, Phase 1, Unit 5A. This is a final record plan for property located at Tranquility Point in Fergus Park. This is located... The Blackford Parkway comes in from Man of War. Polo Club sits down below. This is the Greenbrier neighborhood in this area. The applicant has brought in a final record plant to create 37 buildable lots. The EAR1 lots are up here in the yellow. The EAR2 lots are down here in the orange. The staff had recommended postponement, and the subdivision committee had recommended postponement at its last meeting, primarily due to an issue related to the density on the property. On the handout that you have in front of you, we do have a revision. It does have the same number of conditions, but with some clarifications on the discussion items. The first number of conditions are our sign-offs. Starting with number nine, we've asked the applicant to denote the number of buildable lots in each zone. The EAR-1 zone under the preliminary development plan is at its maximum number of buildable lots. So we have asked that they give us an accurate tracking through the recording of these record plats, the number of lots in each zone, so that we can track and make sure that at the end we have the right number of lots in the zone that has the density restriction. Number 10 is to clarify the number of trees to be planted in order to meet their tree canopy requirement. They've got an incorrect number on their additional trees. They will still need to meet their street tree requirement. However, the additional canopy, we believe, is met on the overall greenway dedication on this lot, and they just need to clarify that on this plan. Number 11 is to denote the tree protection areas on the LFUCG greenway lots. Part of the 50-foot buffer conditional zoning requirement with the Greenbrier neighborhood that is in this urban county government greenway is an area of tree protection that is to be maintained as a buffer with the adjacent Greenbrier neighborhood. That area is shown on the preliminary development, preliminary subdivision plan. I'm just asking that it be carried back over on this plat as well. Number 12 is to graphically depict sinkhole-related non-buildable areas on three of the lots in this plat. That was something that was shown on the preliminary subdivision plan. And also, two lots here and here have small sinkhole-related non-buildable areas contained primarily within the front yard setbacks. Those areas need to be on the plat to show where there is they cannot build on the buildable lots. All three lots still have sufficient buildable area to be buildable for houses. number 13 is the resolution of our discussion item about the proposed density increase we have asked the applicant to denote that the phase one unit five area will be limited to no more than the 92 buildable lots unless they bring back their development plan to be amended by this commission A lot of work went into coming up with the density numbers, and they have the option to record additional lots in this plat. However, the total number of lots for the area that was approved on the development plan must be no more than what's stated on this sheet. We did get that in writing from the applicant during the course of the week, and we've asked that they denote that on this plan. Number 14 is the addition of a 20-foot easement on the Greenway lot that I mentioned along the Tranquility Point right-of-way to the approval of Kentucky Utilities. They did let us know that there was a need for a utility easement that will run all the way down through this area to serve the property. It is an overhead line because it's a distribution nature to serve the entire area. we've asked that in order to minimize the conflict with the buffer that exists, that they put that easement up along the right-of-way here so as not to produce a conflict with the tree protection areas. And the last condition is the addition of the sinkhole-related note from the final development plan for the three lots I mentioned before. It's just simply a carryover of the same building, a non-buildable area note from that plan on to this plat. With that, the staff is now recommending approval, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Questions for Mr. Taylor? Yes, Ms. Phillips. Chris, the lots, there are three lots that have sinkhole issues, and both, or all three of those lots, the sinkholes are contained within the front setbacks, but they're across the road right-of-way. Well, part of it does contain, the one on this lot here does extend out into the right-of-way, but that's not abnormal. Again, the only restrictions for those sinkhole-related non-buildable areas are principal structures and accessory structures. So they would be allowed to dedicate that portion. We do have a geotechnical report that was produced and has been reviewed by Jim Redman that we do have in the file. So I think the staff is comfortable as long as those areas are just denoted as non-buildable. That was what I was wondering, if that sinkhole on either side of the street was related as one giant environmental feature, that we're building a road through? I don't think it was one feature, and I don't believe they turned out to be true sinkholes after they were fully investigated, but they were to be denoted as non-buildable areas just in case. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Chris, I do have one in regards to the easement, 20-foot easement. At a distance, I cannot tell. So how close to Tranquility would this 20-foot easement be? And the reason I'm asking is if we're talking about a 20-foot wide easement, what's left before we get to the trees? This is a 70-foot wide buffer down through here. There is room, according to the final development plan with the tree protection areas on it, There is room for there to be very minimal conflict within, if you keep it in, within the 20 feet from this right-of-way over. There's also an extra 10 feet of right-of-way between sidewalk and utility strip where utilities can go as well. So there may be some double-up where utilities in the right-of-way as well as the first 20 feet there without getting into the tree protection. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Taylor? If not, we'll ask to hear from the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here for Ball Holmes, Rena Wiseman, and Roy Cayley. We're in agreement with the revised conditions, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Wiseman? I don't think so. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. I guess one question real quick for the staff. The revised staff recommendations, where is the staff now? This came through subdivision with postponement recommendation. Yeah, the staff is recommending approval to staff. Okay. Thank you. I did not hear that. Any other questions, Ms. Beatty? Yes, ma'am. Chris, on the number 13, Yes, ma'am. The note concerning not more than 92 buildable lots, can you explain that again? Is that in relationship to the sinkholes, or is that something else? Did I miss that? This area right through here and up, all through where the parkway comes on around, a little finger that they haven't brought in yet, is all part of a Phase 1, Unit 5 section on the development plan, and then from this way over was all Phase 3. What they're bringing in now is just plats of Phase 1, Unit 5, and on that final development plan there was a total of 92 buildable lots. We're simply telling them to denote that 92 is what is buildable in that area because that's what was approved on the development plan. Anything more than that we'll need to bring back an amended development plan. The reason for that note is that they brought in more lots. They picked up a few lots here and dropped one here, but there was a net gain of two lots. and what we don't want is to get to the end and have six or seven lots over and have an issue at that time. I want to make it real clear up front that the number of lots, the density is set by the development plan and they'll need to amend that if they want to go forward beyond that. Other questions? Thank you, Chris. Anyone in the audience, anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I will close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion among the Commission members and or a motion. Ms. Blanton? We are ready for a motion. Move approval of Plan 2012-91F, Blackford Property, with the 15 conditions outlined by staff. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2012-91F Blackford property with the revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Our next plan that we will hear, I'm moving on to page 4, item 3A. It's DP 2012-60, Sebastian Property Unit 2. We do have revised conditions which are on a yellow sheet. We also have findings for use of access easement on blue sheets and a waiver request on white sheets. Yes, Mr. Tigger. The next item is Development Plan 2012-60, Sebastian Property Unit 2. This is a final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan for property located at 2826 Leestown Road. This property is located in Marshall property, which you've seen in the past. It sits right here, Greenway and Railroad here, the continuation of trail facilities in here, and another Greenway in this area. Leastown Road sits out this direction. Trailwood Lane runs all the way from Alexandria through both subdivisions to where Masters and Station Drive crosses, and that connection is in already. This application is for 148 townhouse units on 22.3 acres. This is property that is zoned R3 and R1E. The staff had previously recommended and the subdivision committee recommended postponement. There were a number of conditions related to conditional uses, open space and such. you do have a revised recommendation and this is a revised plan the first ten conditions are sign off conditions number 10 is provided the planning commission make a finding regarding the use of access easements as the sole access to these lots this is the blue sheet that does have that finding on it if you take a look the access easements are these units and here these lots are oriented fronting access easements. Their sole frontage is not to the public street, such as like these are. However, these are fronted interior to additional access easements. That does require a finding under our ordinance. Number 12 is provided that the Planning Commission grants a waiver to Articles 4-7D-1 and 6-8B of the subdivision regulations, and Mr. Martin will go over that with you in just a moment. A number 13 is to document the site triangle compliance at the Cane View Trail intersections to the approval of traffic engineering. This area does have a 10-foot building line. There was initial concerns stated about being able to see at these intersections on Cane View with Trailwood. We are under the impression with traffic that this will be acceptable given the additional right-of-way in this area, utility strip sidewalks with that 10 foot and most of them are set back further than the 10 foot required at these corners that is just something we want to make sure that traffic gets a further sign off on and that it's clear on the recommendation that that is going to be checked through the final sign off process number 16 was to denote or to expand the hoa note to to include dumpster areas. While this development plan does show lots for all of the units on the property, they do have a number of HOA areas. Obviously, the access easements, the parking lots, it's a commonly owned HOA development. However, they're proposing lotting. What we want to make sure is that the HOA is also responsible for dumpster areas so that if they do indeed intend to sell these off at a later date, that someone's not responsible for individually their little slice of a parking lot and their dumpster. And number 17 is to detail the extent of the VUA screening that's adjacent to the single-family homes. Again, this is to be exactly similar to what was done at Marshall. We have single-family residential homes all along this border until you get to the Marshall Development Plan. On that plan, we were very specific about what type of screening details to go along where vehicles would be pulling in, shining lights to the backs of the properties, and these areas all along. We're simply asking that they continue that type of landscape detail on this plan to meet those requirements. But with that, the staff is now recommending approval. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Taylor? No. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm going to present the waiver request and the access finding to you today. The waiver request is, as I promised, it's a substantial completion request. This is identical to the Marshall development that Mr. Taylor mentioned to you, which is in this location. As you can see from this plan, an integral part of their design is the utilization of private easements for the townhouse orientation, and it creates courtyard areas and open areas, which complements the open space and the trails that exist. Again, very similar to the Marshall development. So they are, before you again, requesting a waiver of substantial completion so that when they build the townhouses, particularly in areas like this, they can get all their utilities in, get all their work done, and then come back and pave the access easements. Because these access easements provide the legal frontage to these lots, as on the marshal, we were initially concerned that they be constructed to provide the frontage and then, again, negotiated the waiver and the request on substantial completion. They will bond these. It's a recommendation of the waiver request. In conjunction with that request, there is a requirement that no COs be issued until those easements are paved on all those units that utilize the access easement as their legal frontage. And that is primarily in this area, as you can see here, as it curves. and then in this area with this private access easement as well. These units all are restricted until basically it's all finished, and folks can then drive back and utilize their garages and that sort of thing. The other waiver that is associated with this request is a waiver of 6-8 of your regs, your subdivision regulations that require proper street termination. If you see these aprons as you come down the right-of-way, and there's one here, when all this was originally laid out, there was a street system proposed. And when they dedicated this street, they actually dedicated these areas. The implication is you're going to get a public street. This little stub street, which doesn't meet your regs. You recently saw this similar situation out at the assisted living off of Citation Boulevard, where the street had the little apron area into it, and they requested the same waiver as well, so that they didn't have to build a cul-de-sac into private property just to meet the subregs. So that is the second waiver they have requested. In conjunction with these access easements, very much in keeping with the Marshall Development, There is a finding necessary by the Planning Commission granting the access easement status, in essence, as the street system and as the frontage for the townhouses. Again, in this area and these areas through here that you can see. Staff has recommended approval to the waivers and the finding. And as I stated, there are conditions of bonding and restricting the COs on the townhouses that are dependent upon those access easements for frontage. And with that, I'd be happy to answer your questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with the revised conditions. Request your approval of them as well as the waivers and the findings of appropriateness. Thank you. Any questions from Mr. Kaley? Seeing none, thank you. Would I ask if anyone else in the audience wished to speak on this plan? Seeing no one, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among the Commission members and or a motion. We do have a motion for the development plan, consideration of two waivers, and then also findings for use access easement. Ms. Blanton. Can we do it all in one motion? Sure. Okay. D.P. 2012-60, Sebastian Property Unit 2, with the 17 conditions outlined by staff, including the finding of appropriateness for access easements, and the two waivers, Article 4-7D1, Certification of Substantial Completion, and Article 6-B, Street Continuity, with the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded. This is for DP 2012-60 with waivers and findings for use access easement. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next item is DP 2012-72, General Telephone Company, Lot 5, amended. This is for property located at 125 Rogey Drive. This is an amended final development plan, and the subject property is located off of Nicholsville Road in this area of where the Aldi's and the development out front went with Fayette Mall right here. These are the two car dealerships at the corner. The new movie theaters and restaurants sit in this area. This was an old cul-de-sac at the time. The purpose of this amendment is for two small additions on the front and on the rear, as well as to allocate parking in the area where right-of-way was released where the old cul-de-sac was. And there was previously an attempt, a request to move this access point. However, part of the revision that we received eliminated that proposed change to leave the access point lined up with where we had set the access for this property. The subdivision committee recommended postponement at its last meeting. The primary reason for that was a considerable loss of information from the previous final development plan. The applicant has brought us a revision that has added most of that information back. We have just a couple of conditions left. Starting with number 10 is the further addition of tree information from lot 8 from the previous plan. The previous one did have tree protection and tree planting plan information for this lot. As we get it, we'd like to keep it on the development plan. He's added it for lot 5, and we can add it back for this one from the previous one. number 11 is an issue that was brought up out of technical committee related to the existing compliance issue that's ongoing with these two lots related to landscaping not being where it should the staff does have a condition to document that that interior required trees and landscaping and the screening and hedges have been installed prior to this plan being certified. It's the staff's intention to make sure that this plan and the property is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and landscaping prior to moving ahead with changes for this lot. Again, the staff is now recommending approval subject to the revised conditions, and if you have any questions, we'd be happy to try to answer them. Questions for Mr. Taylor? Yes, Mr. Wilson? Let me go back to 10. It's this addition of tree information. is there a time frame in which they're going to present that? That is a condition that they can meet when they bring in the plan for certification to us. They will just need to add that information back to the plan. Any other questions for Mr. Taylor? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cayley? Thank you. I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I'm in agreement I have one little clarification I want to bug you Chris in the last item which is the documentation of the required landscaping the area from here back Roger used to have a cul-de-sac here and that's been closed this is going to be reconstructed and I guess I just want to make sure that as we do I can tell them as we verify the required landscaping be installed first, do I have to do it in the area that they're going to tear up for the new parking lot? Meeting this condition is going to be part of Building Inspection's normal review of sign-off for landscaping. We'll leave it to Building Inspection to tell us when this site is in compliance enough to sign off on the plan. If they're comfortable with that, then we'll move ahead. And as soon as we are comfortable with the building inspections issue, we'll move ahead with certification. Okay. Also, I can comment that the intention of the staff with that was not to affect the very small area of the revision, but the much larger, broader property that's not being amended. Okay. Yeah. So you're okay? Everyone's clear, yes. That makes me happy. Now you're okay with all 11 conditions? Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Cayley? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing no one, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion among commission members and or motion. Yes, sir. Are you ready for motion? I am if everybody else is. Yep. I move approval for DP 2012-72, General Tulls, one company, lots five as amended. with the 11 conditions as set forth by staff. Thank you. The motion has been made for approval. Do we have a second? And seconded. This is for DP 2012-72, General Calhoun Company, Lot 5, with the revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. next if I haven't skipped anything I believe we're moving to page 6 of the agenda at the top of the page item F which is DP 2012-73 and as they're getting ready we do have a memorandum of the release and call of bonds dated September 13, 2012 before you if it's your wishes I'll entertain a motion for that. Ms. Beatty. Mr. Chair, I recommend that I move that we accept the September 13, 2012 release and call of bonds as submitted. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the release and call of bonds dated 9-13-2012. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Next, now on the agenda, it's Watts Property, DP 2012-73F. We do have another revision, which is on the green sheet this time. Mr. Taylor. All right. The next item, again, is on page 6. DP 2012-73, Watts Farm, Tract 4, amended. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 420-430 Redding Road. This property is located just off of Tates Creek Road, Thornton's, Reading Road heading this way, the Lexington Tennis Club, Kirk Levington Parks. It's right up here on the left. This is for the apartments in this area on the left of Reading. The purpose of this amendment is to add a proposed fitness facility into the tennis court area that's proposed. It's about 2,000 square feet. The subdivision committee and staff recommended postponement at its last meeting primarily related to issues regarding compliance with lot coverage and floor area. The applicant had not incorporated the new square footage into the site statistics, and we couldn't verify compliance with those two significant numbers. We did receive a revised plan. We only have two non-sign-off conditions related. The first is to revise the floor area statistics and open space note reference to Article 9-6B. That provision allows the applicant to go over the maximum floor area in the R3 zone, provided they have a requisite increase in open space. They do meet that. However, the references do not reflect the current Article 9 after the text amendment that drastically shortened it. We're asking that they simply revise it and update it to what the new Article 9 requirements state. And number nine is to correct the required open space percentage in the site statistics. They reference a 7.5% required open space. That's taking a deduction that's only allowed in the infill and redevelopment area, and I gave Mr. Cayley bad advice, and that's why that's on there, and he's got to change it back. So if you have any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them or own up to any other mistakes. I've made. One of those rare mistakes. I didn't say that. Any questions for Mr. Taylor? The staff is recommending approval. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Kaley? Rory Kaley of the partners. We are in agreement with the revised conditions request approval. Thank you. You've been busy. Any questions for Mr. Kaley? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Seeing none. Our crowd is getting thin, but we appreciate those that are still here. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from the commission members and or a motion. Yes, Ms. Blanton. Move approval of DP 2012-73 Watts Farm, Tract 4, as amended with the nine conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded by Ms. Beatty. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. We took care of the performance bonds and letter of credit. We'll move down to zoning items under A1 ZODA 2012-13. You do have a brown sheet, or one brown sheet anyway, in front of you. And Ms. Tracy Wade's in front of us. Good afternoon, Chief Owens, members of the Commission. I'm glad to be joining you on my off Thursday today. The next item is on page 8 of your agenda, and instead of the notebooks, we just brought the staff report, and the two accompanying documents are when the council initiated it, so it's a resolution from the council, and then the second thing is just the text that we sent to the neighborhood associations when we mailed it out. This is a text amendment to transfer enforcement of sign ordinance regulations, which is Article 17 of the zoning ordinance from building inspection to the division of planning. And the text is there on your staff report and agenda as well. But it is basically striking building inspection from two sections of Article 17, dealing with enforcement and then adding planning. So it will read division of planning rather than building inspection. And this is a text amendment that was initiated by the council. It was not part of our original amendment to move enforcement to planning late last year, but it is something that the Division of Planning and specifically the Zoning Enforcement Section has been doing since January 1st along with the other enforcement duties that they've taken on. So they have, we mentioned in our staff report, responded to 30-plus sign-related zoning enforcement complaints and have had over 60 violations because of those. So they are also, in reporting to the council a few weeks ago, indicated that they're developing a more proactive enforcement policy for the sign ordinance, and the Planning Commission may have other text amendments in the future related to that. The staff in the zoning committee did recommend approval of this. to transfer the signed ordinance regulation enforcement to the Division of Planning. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Wade? I think Ms. Blanton might be ready for a motion. Let me make sure anyone else wants to discuss anything, mention anything first. Seeing none, we'll close this part and open it up and allow Ms. Blanton for a motion. Move approval of ZOTA 2012-13, Transfer Enforcement of Article 17, Sign Regulations from the Division of Building Inspection to the Division of Planning. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy, actually. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. The motion passes. Any commission items? I do know that we do have a work session next week. Come with sleeves rolled up for open discussion. Part of it's on the comp plan, and part of it's on, I'm hearing Lex Trans coming for a brief presentation, and maybe a surprise visitor. Do you want to leave it at that, or do you want to explain that? The Division of Emergency Management is also going to share with you some locations of emergency-type facilities that could influence comp planning as well. So you'll have those two outsiders as well as your own discussion of land uses. Thank you, Mr. King. Any other staff items? Audience items. I would note I did learn that our two very diligent attendees out in the audience, Seth and Danielle, are here, maybe not voluntarily, but as part of Ms. Roche-Phillips' class. But welcome. Sorry that we did not have more fireworks for you today, but it is something that we like when everything rolls through here pretty easily. So thanks for being in attendance today. Good luck with Ms. Phillips. Any other items from the Planning Commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Thank you. Meeting's adjourned.