# Planning Commission Meeting - October 11, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 11, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2729 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2729?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-10-11 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 16,025 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 October 11, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Chairman presided over the meeting, which addressed nine agenda items related to property development and land use approvals. The Commission took 15 motions and votes during the session and heard 3 public comments. Of the nine items on the agenda, eight were approved and one was postponed. Approved items included the SFH Property, Tuscany Units 2 & 3, Patchen-Wilkes Units 1 and 2A, Hamburg Place Office Park Lots 4, 5 & 13, Glen Creek Unit 3-C Section 1 (Dove Creek), East Bridford Land & Development Company's Kingston Hall Phase 1 Unit 2, and a portion of Greendale Hills Unit 2. The Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Inc., Lot 3 item was postponed. Several of the approved items included amendments (AMD) to existing plans, and multiple items were scheduled for subsequent consideration dates in December 2012 and January 2013. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 11, 2012: * Will Berkley * Mike Owens * Carolyn Plumlee * Karen Mundy * Hillard Newman * Jeff Neal * Bill Sallee * Tom Martin * Chris Taylor * Dave Jarman * Denice Bullock * Cheryl Gallt * Captain Charles Bowen * Kenzie Gleason * Tracy Jones * Rory Kaley * Matt Carter * Rob Sims * Roger Leidenberger * Mary Ware * Frank Penn * Will's daughter No attendees were recorded as absent or arriving late. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting on October 11, 2012 included 16 votes, all of which passed by voice vote. **Procedural Matters** The minutes from September 13, 2012 were approved [timestamp: 00:07:58]. **Postponements** Plan 2012-101P, Tuscany Unit 8, was postponed until November 8, 2012 [timestamp: 00:09:37]. Plan 2012-103F, Fuller et al. & Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, was postponed until November 8, 2012 [timestamp: 00:10:40]. **Consent Agenda** The consent agenda was approved with the removal of Plan 2012-100P and Plan 2012-103F [timestamp: 00:15:48]. **Development Plans and Subdivisions** Plan 2012-100P, SFH Property, was approved with 13 conditions including resolution of landscaping and trail location at final record plat [timestamp: 00:48:02]. Plan 2012-102P, Tuscany Units 2 & 3, was approved with revised conditions including restriction of lots 139 until a revised flood study is submitted [timestamp: 01:01:41]. Plan 2005-3P, Patchen-Wilkes Unit 1, was re-approved with original conditions and a revised condition 3 [timestamp: 01:04:51]. Plan 2006-74P, Patchen-Wilkes Unit 2A, was re-approved with original conditions and revised conditions 3 and 5 [timestamp: 01:07:08]. Plan 2012-108F, Hamburg Place Office Park, Lots 4, 5 & 13, was approved with a waiver of Article 6-8 of the Land Subdivision Regulations [timestamp: 01:20:10]. DP 2012-82, Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 4, was approved with a waiver of Article 6-8 and deletion of condition 12 [timestamp: 01:20:40]. Plan 2006-151F, Glen Creek Unit 3-C, Section 1, was re-approved with staff-recommended revisions [timestamp: 01:27:43]. DP 2006-103, Glen Creek Unit 3, was re-approved with staff-recommended revisions [timestamp: 01:28:15]. Plan 2008-77F, East Bridford Land & Dev. Co., Kingston Hall, was re-approved with original conditions and three staff-recommended additions [timestamp: 01:33:13]. DP 2012-83, Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Inc., Lot 3, was continued until November 8, 2012 [timestamp: 02:09:42]. DP 2006-69, Greendale Hills Unit 2, was re-approved with 11 conditions [timestamp: 02:13:26]. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the Commission during the public comment period. **Doug Cawthon** [timestamp: 00:24:17] spoke on behalf of adjacent property owners regarding green space and stone wall preservation. He urged the Commission to preserve existing trees and green space along Sandersville Road, citing the character of the area and property values. Cawthon requested that the developer maintain the stone wall and retain as many trees as possible. **Mr. Carlton** [timestamp: 00:39:18] raised concerns about trail location and tree preservation. He expressed worry about the proximity of the proposed trail to the stone wall and the potential for tree removal. Carlton emphasized the need for landscaping and suggested a $20,000 contribution to enhance the area. **Mary Ware** [timestamp: 01:38:06] represented adjacent residents in voicing strong opposition to the proposed extended stay hotel development. She raised multiple concerns including stormwater runoff, noise, light pollution, and traffic congestion. Ware also expressed concerns about privacy invasion, dumpster placement, and the potential use of a nearby vacant lot. ## Contested Items **Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Inc. Development Plan** The proposed development plan for Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Inc. generated significant community opposition. Adjacent residents raised substantial concerns about multiple impacts of the project, including stormwater management, noise, light pollution, traffic, and privacy. Due to the extent of community concerns, the Commission postponed its decision on this matter until November 8, 2012, to allow for a Board of Adjustment review to be completed. **Trail Location and Tree Preservation in SFH Property** The placement of a trail on the SFH Property prompted heated discussion between Commission members and residents. The central disagreement focused on how trail construction would affect existing trees and stone walls on the property. Rather than resolve the dispute at the meeting, the Commission imposed a condition requiring that the impact of trail construction on these natural and historic features be resolved at the final record plat stage. ## SFH Property (12/3/12) [timestamp: 00:17:56] The Commission discussed the revised conditions for the SFH Property subdivision plan. Key speakers in this discussion included Rory Kaley, Doug Cawthon, Mr. Carlton, and Mr. Taylor. The discussion focused on several technical aspects of the proposed subdivision: * **Stormwater management** — The Commission reviewed revised stormwater management provisions for the project. * **Trail location** — The placement and design of trails within the subdivision were examined. * **Tree preservation** — Protections and preservation measures for existing trees were discussed. **Concerns Raised** Commission members raised concerns about the impact of the proposed development on green space and the existing stone wall on the property. These environmental and site feature considerations were central to the deliberation. **Conditions and Outcome** The Commission approved the SFH Property subdivision plan with conditions. The approval included specific requirements related to: * Landscaping specifications for the project * Trail location to be finalized at the record plat stage The motion to approve with these conditions passed, allowing the project to move forward subject to the Commission's specified requirements being met during the final record plat phase. ## Tuscany, Units 2 & 3 (AMD) (12/3/12) [timestamp: 00:50:23] The Commission reviewed a revised plan for Tuscany Units 2 & 3, with discussion centered on post-development floodplain issues and the status of non-buildable lots. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Rory Kaley, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Newman. **Main Issues** The revised plan addressed the post-development floodplain affecting the project. A primary concern was the presence of non-buildable lots that needed to be removed from the development plan. The Commission and project representatives worked through the implications of flood-related constraints on the project layout. **Resolution** A compromise was reached between the parties. Rather than immediately resolving the non-buildable lot issue, the Commission agreed to defer the recordation of affected lots pending submission of a revised flood study. This approach allowed the project to move forward while ensuring that flood-related concerns would be properly addressed through updated technical analysis. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Patchen-Wilkes, Unit 1 (AMD) (1/2/13) [timestamp: 01:02:39] The Commission re-approved the preliminary subdivision plan for Patchen-Wilkes Unit 1. Rory Kaley presented the item to the Commission. The approval included the original conditions previously established for the project, along with a revised tree preservation condition. The applicant agreed to accept all of the terms presented by the Commission. The outcome of this discussion was approval of the preliminary subdivision plan. ## Patchen-Wilkes, Unit 2A (1/2/13) [timestamp: 01:05:21] The Commission re-approved the preliminary subdivision plan for Patchen-Wilkes Unit 2A (identifier: 2006-74P). Rory Kaley presented the item to the Commission. The re-approval included revised conditions focused on landscaping and tree preservation requirements for the project. The applicant agreed to the revised terms presented by the Commission. The outcome of this discussion was approval of the preliminary subdivision plan with the modified conditions in place. ## Hamburg Place Office Park, Lots 4, 5 & 13 (AMD) (12/25/12) [timestamp: 01:08:17] The Commission discussed and approved the record plat and development plan for Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 4. Key speakers in this discussion included Mr. Martin and Matt Carter. The approval included a waiver for street termination. The Commission also imposed conditions related to certification requirements and traffic improvements that must be satisfied as part of the development. The outcome of this agenda item was approval. ## Glen Creek, Unit 3-C, Section 1 (DOVE CREEK) (1/2/13) **Project Identifier:** 2006-151F The Commission re-approved the record plat and development plan for Glen Creek Unit 3-C during this discussion [timestamp: 01:21:58]. The agenda item addressed staff-recommended revisions intended to resolve floodplain conflicts and variance requests associated with the project. **Key Participants** Mr. Martin and Rob Sims were the primary speakers during this agenda item. **Outcome** The Commission approved the record plat and development plan for Glen Creek Unit 3-C, Section 1 (Dove Creek), incorporating the staff-recommended revisions. ## East Bridford Land & Dev. Co., (Kingston Hall), Phase 1, Unit 2 (1/2/13) **Identifier:** 2008-77F The Commission re-approved the record plat for East Bridford Land & Dev. Co. during this discussion item. [timestamp: 01:28:48] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Martin and Rory Kaley. **Action Taken** The Commission approved the record plat with updated conditions related to scenic easement boundaries. This represented a re-approval of the previously considered project, with modifications made to address scenic easement boundary specifications. **Outcome** The item was approved. ## Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Inc., Lot 3 (AMD) (12/3/12) [timestamp: 01:33:48] The Commission discussed the development plan for Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Inc., Lot 3, which involved an extended stay hotel project. Key speakers included Mary Ware, Roger Leidenberger, and Mr. Taylor. The discussion centered on community opposition to the proposed development and procedural concerns raised during the review process. Rather than proceeding with approval, the Commission determined that additional time was needed to address these issues. **Outcome** The Commission postponed approval of the development plan. A motion to continue the item until November 8, 2012, was passed, allowing for further consideration of the community concerns and procedural matters before a final decision would be made. ## Greendale Hills, Unit 2 (A PORTION OF) (AMD.) (1/2/13) The Commission re-approved the development plan for Greendale Hills Unit 2 [timestamp: 02:10:42]. Key speakers in this discussion included Mr. Martin and Rory Kaley. The Commission's approval included 11 conditions for the project. A significant requirement among these conditions was the connection of Lucille Drive in the first phase of development. The outcome of this agenda item was approval of the amended development plan. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of minutes from September 13, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Plan 2012-101P, Tuscany Unit 8, until November 8, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Plan 2012-103F, Fuller et al. & Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, until November 8, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of consent agenda with removal of Plan 2012-100P and Plan 2012-103F - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2012-100P, SFH Property, with 13 conditions including resolution of landscaping and trail location at final record plat - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2012-102P, Tuscany Units 2 & 3, with revised conditions including restriction of lots 139 until revised flood study is submitted - **Motion** — passed: Re-approval of Plan 2005-3P, Patchen-Wilkes Unit 1, with original conditions and revised condition 3 - **Motion** — passed: Re-approval of Plan 2006-74P, Patchen-Wilkes Unit 2A, with original conditions and revised conditions 3 and 5 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2012-108F, Hamburg Place Office Park, Lots 4, 5 & 13, with waiver of Article 6-8 of Land Subdivision Regulations - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2012-82, Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 4, with waiver of Article 6-8 and deletion of condition 12 - **Motion** — passed: Re-approval of Plan 2006-151F, Glen Creek, Unit 3-C, Section 1, with staff-recommended revisions - **Motion** — passed: Re-approval of DP 2006-103, Glen Creek Unit 3, with staff-recommended revisions - **Motion** — passed: Re-approval of Plan 2008-77F, East Bridford Land & Dev. Co., Kingston Hall, with original conditions and three staff-recommended additions - **Motion** — passed: Continuance of DP 2012-83, Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Inc., Lot 3, until November 8, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Re-approval of DP 2006-69, Greendale Hills Unit 2, with 11 conditions --- ## Full transcript Let me give you all of me All of you, you're partying inside Every kind of love you can express All the secret dreams CRE- Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I believe it's 1.30, so we'll call this meeting to order. And first on the agenda would be approval of minutes dated September 13, 2012. These were sent to the Commission members via email. So I'd ask if there were any changes that needed to be made. If not, I'd entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes. We move approval of the minutes for September 13, 2012. Thank you. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Motion passes. Next, I'd ask Mr. Bill Salih to walk us through the Kassin agenda. Whoops, he's coming, I hope. The Kassin agenda is on a brown sheet in front of you. Mr. Chairman, we understand there may be a request for a postponement of one of the plans. Okay. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I did forget. moving down the line. Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. If we could look at page 2, item C. It's plan 2012-101P, Tuscany Unit 8. We request a one-month postponement to the November 8th meeting. Okay, Mr. Kaley. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Yes, Ms. Blanton. Move to postpone Plan 2012-101P Tuscany Unit 8 until the November 8th meeting. Thank you. Motion has been made. Do we have a second? Second. Motion to be made and seconded for postponement until November 8, 2012, of Plan 2012-101-P. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Since I was firmly reminded, do we have any other requests for postponement overthralls? Yes, sir. Perfect. Thank you. Justin Jury with 2020 land surveying. The plan is on page 3, 2A Fuller et al. Metathorp Community Business Center. We'd like to request a one-month postponement, please. Okay, and I'm sorry, you said that was the Fuller et al. Metathorp Community? That's correct. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Seeing none, any commission member? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll go back to Mr. Saleh. I think we're ready now. As far as the Kassin agenda. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. A number of your items on your meeting agenda do qualify for consideration at this time for your approval of your consent agenda. There are two preliminary subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that are on the consent agenda. First is the very first item on your agenda, page 1, item A, plan 2012-99P, Helen Meyer Property Unit 2. This is for property located at 2405 Sandersville Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item B. It's plan 2012-100PSFH property located at 2373 Sandersville Road. There is only one remaining final subdivision plan that is recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee following the postponements. That item appears on page 4, item C, of your meeting agenda, Plan 2012-109F, LFUCG and Annex Parking Garage. This is for land downtown located at 150 and 162 East Main Street. There is one final subdivision plan that's recommended for re-approval by your planning staff. That appears on page 5, item F, of your meeting agenda, Plan 2011-25F, an amended final plaque for Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 12. This is for property located on Pink Pigeon Parkway and Vendor Way. There are three development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on page 5, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-79, Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1B, Block F, Lot 1. This is for property located at 2280 Thunderstick Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. It's page 6, Item B, DP 2012-80, an amended final development plan for new market property, Phase 1, Unit 6. This is for property located at 1501 Deerhaven Lane. You do have a memorandum from Mr. Tom Martin of the staff regarding this plan. It's an EAMP compliance statement. Also, this plan requires an affidavit about the signposting. The staff has received that affidavit. It looks to be in order for that particular item. You would like that in the record. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda on page 6, item C, DP 2012-81, Fayette Industrial Park, Lot 7. This involves property at 3851 Mall Road. There is one remaining plan on your consent agenda. It is recommended for reapproval by the staff and appears on page 8, item H, of your meeting agenda. DP 2011-19, an amended final development plan for the Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 12A, located on Pink Pigeon Parkway and Vendor Way. Mr. Chairman, at this time the Commission can consider approval of these items as recommended either by the staff or your subdivision committee unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask to pull one of these items off the consent agenda for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Ms. Phillips? Ms. Phillips. Mr. Chair, considering the second agenda item, SFH property, the fact that it was conditionally approved by the subdivision committee but still is coming to us with 20 conditions including a couple of resolves, I ask that we pull that and take a look at it. Okay. Thank you. Any other member of the Commission or anyone in the audience who wish to hear any of the Seeing items on the Kassin agenda? Seeing none, hearing none, I would ask for a motion in regards to the Kassin agenda. Removing item SFH property, page 2, item B, and also noting that the Fuller et al. and Meadowthorpe Community Business Center has been postponed for one month. Mr. Chairman, I make a recommendation to approve the consent agenda, removing item, page 2, item B, plan 2012-100P SFH property, and removing plan 2012-103F Fuller et al., which is a postponement. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval of the Kassin agenda. Do I have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the Kassin agenda. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Motion passes. we will stay with the agenda as listed and go to the first item which would be on page 2 plan 2012-100 PSFH property located at 2373 Sandersville Road Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. We're on page two for the plan 2012-100P SFH property. If you all will notice, Chris just passed out white copies for revised conditions. We received this plan yesterday, and we're able to come up with revised conditions for you all today. Okay. It's not working. It's dead. Hello? There we go. Okay. Sorry about that. We're going out to SFH, which is located out off of Sandersville Road. If you take Leestown Road out to Greendale and Sandersville, this is an area that right now is up for development. We just reapproved a section of the Hillemeyer Farm a month ago in this area, and this is one of the plans that we had on our consent agenda for Hillemeyer. were located just inside of this Hillamio property off of Sandersville Road. They have 79 lots and one HOA lot with the revised conditions. We have now cut it down to 12. We still have the first seven conditions as typical sign-offs from engineering traffic. building inspection, the addressing urban forester department of environmental quality and green space. As we talked about at the committee meeting, we have condition number eight, addition of note from the number 10 from the preliminary development plan. There's tanks located out on this property, and at the time this was originally in for a zone change, they want it to be notified about the tanks for Division of Environmental Management. Number nine, correct the note to make reference to the Division of Engineering Manuals. Ten, resolve the proposed widening of Sandersville Road in relation to the existing stone wall. There was some discussion as to the stone wall and the location of the trail and where the road can be widened, so we want to make sure that we have the same cross-section all the way down Sandersville Road to note access to the detention basin on adjacent property. The property that was approved on the consent agenda has a detention basin located on it, so we just want to make sure that there is access to that. Resolve the scope of the building permit restrictions in relation to the access to Greendale Road in Sandersville. We're requiring two access points for emergency. There was discussion as to allowing only so much development before we had access points. We have one to Sandersville here, and there's two right here on Greendale. So when they come in for development, we want to make sure that they have these access points, at least two of before they develop out all the lots. With that, staff recommends approval with the new conditions to the revised plan. Any questions from commission members? Thank you. Mr. Kaley? Thank you for getting us revised conditions. revised plan and conditions. Can I have a second just to look at it? Yes, sir. Okay, sorry for the delay. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. The revised conditions, we can be in agreement with them. I had believed that I addressed the new number 9. I was given a specific note from Division of Water Quality on the TRC comments, and I changed the note to that. It's slightly different than what staff has here. As long as we can make Number 9 to the approval of water quality, I'm okay with the rest of the plans. it pretty much says the same thing her wording had all manuals i think that covered a lot more than just this engineering manual she started talking about stormwater stuff thank you mr kayley i presume staff's okay with that change okay yes any any questions from the commission members. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Mr. Cawthon. Thank you. My name is Doug Cawthon. My brother and I own property across the street. I also speak, he couldn't make it, but Jim Snyder, we spoke. He and his family own Spring Valley Golf Course. And, you know, obviously we're not against any of this. This has been on the plan for quite a while. Our goal is to clarify or ask for clarification of the way the green space and the quality road is maintained. I did just take some pictures, which I'll give to you all. Hold on. Get your microphone. So, hey, what, let me put this up over here. Those pictures just represent the current road, which the plan, as you've discussed, is to keep it basically a quaint road. On the left side, you have Spring Valley Golf Course. You can see, you know, great trees and green space. And as you go down, that's number one. And if you go to the next slide, you'd see number two, which is there's a golf course on the left. All that on the right is the rock wall that is in the plan to be retained. Go to number three, just continues. There's a rock wall you can see a little bit more. You can also see all the trees that are in the original Hill and Irish stockpile and might be able to be used to help with any green space. And there's number four, which is looking the opposite direction. and golf course is now on your right. Obviously, there's a lot of beautiful trees and kind of character that are already existing and are in the rock wall, which is being retained, and you've got the right-of-way behind it. And I understand that they've got to dig and flatten and create basins, but as I drive along Master Sensation and you see all this great green space in front of a lot of homes, and it looks better driving by. If you go to, this is just, yeah, two more pictures. Both Kerry and I and the Schneider family just want to retain it. That is Georgetown Road. That's in the opposite direction. You can have a rock wall in front of that and nothing else, and it's still going to look like that. And all we're saying is, let's keep it beautiful. You know, you've got, we spent a lot of money, and I know that Balsall spent a lot of money on green space and trees. And there's already a lot there. Let's keep it to the greatest degree possible. And I'd like it, you know, we'd like it to be in the plan. You've got item number five says that one of the conditions is urban forestry approval of the tree protection plan. And then you've got green space approval. We just kind of would like to say, hey, keep everything that can be kept. Plant as much as you can plant to, number one, make it look nice. Number two, not have that. And number three, hopefully, I believe the value of the lots and everything will be better. Obviously, they have to make one entrance. I understand that, you know, you'll have trees there on the entrance to kind of beauty it up, but you're going to have an entrance. But we're just trying to not end up with that and try to not only make our land hold its value and hopefully be worth more. I think the lots will sell for a lot more. I don't want to get into their business, but I do want to keep as many trees as possible. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Mr. Query, would you like to address any of this? Offer any suggestions? I'm going to ask Rory to correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that the developer has, and Hill and Myers has probably moved every tree that they possibly can out of the old nursery. So what we're looking at there today is what's going to stay. Of course, as the property gets developed, trees are going to have to be removed. Most of this landscaping is left over from the old Hillenmeyer nursery. And I'll ask Rory to speak to. We'll try to work with the developer and try to preserve as much of that as possible. but at the same time, the developer is required to plant trees. So I don't want to give the citizen the idea that the pictures that he's showing here, every tree can be preserved because it can't. Do you have any information you can share as far as particularly roadway, your knowledge as far as the trees along the fence row? I don't see any reason that they would have to remove any of the trees, basically their volunteer old fence row trees. I don't, within that public right-of-way and that rock wall, I don't see any reason why any of those would have to be removed. But everything within that old Hillenmeyer farm, of course. I understand that. Yeah, I think that's what he's at. Yeah, I don't see any problem with preserving what's in the public right away and what's around that old fence. Okay. And the only other question I have is... Come forward. The only other question I have is I know just because I've moved a lot of trees that, you know, hey, I'll take some of those trees if you don't want them. Because I've taken guys and said, hey, can we move that? You know, Big Trees Inc. said, yeah, we can move about 100 of those. Any of those that can be. I mean, heck, I'd let them park them over on our property, you know, if they needed space. I just want to keep what's in the tree lane and hopefully plant because there is a... Need a microphone, Mr. Calvin. There's this corridor all along Sandersville where there is quite a bit of space because of the right-of-way that you're keeping. And then there's a big basin area, so I'm sure they'll probably have to dig that out. But if we can put, you know, just keep it green. And I think the more that's on record, I know that it'll be worth more for them. But that's why we're here is just to say, hey, let's try to keep all we can. Thank you. Thanks. Does that mean I've got to stand in line behind you to get any of those trees? Mr. Cayley, do you have anything to offer? Yes, I hope it's something good. talking with the balls that with the other developments they've done around town, they have taken the trees out of there that they feel they can use in the new landscapes they do and Mayhem properties and other places. And we certainly need canopy requirements as we develop this. The one caveat I have that I'm a little leery of is that our cross-section of Sandersville Road is to dedicate 30 feet from the center line, and it's basically about 15 feet behind the wall. Behind that wall, we're also supposed to be putting in an 8-foot wide multi-use trail. So we have to comply with the rock stone fence ordinance. We've got to keep that. Behind there, we have to have this multi-use trail. So to get that in there, there will be tree removal. There will be grading. And then as it is all dedicated right-of-way, there's certain requirements that traffic would have safety-wise. So while we would like to keep that area, especially since the developer is going to have to set up an HOA to maintain the multi-use trail, it would be much better to keep it green and nice and maintained well. There's still going to be that construction behind that wall we have to do for the multi-use trail. So there's some, you know, you drive through it now, it's green, a lot of places you can't even see the stone fence. but there is going to have to be work in their utilities, the basins, and this trail. Okay, thank you. Let me ask this from commission members. Any questions from commission members? Ms. Phillips? I don't know if this is better directed to staff or maybe you know Mr. Kuehly. If that stone fence is in any way damaged, does it need to be repaired, replaced? with something of like material? Tell me what the rules are for the stone fences. Does anyone have the ordinance with them? It's generally, you cannot remove it without permission from historical preservation. Drive this Sandersville and Greendale and you'll see a lot of old wall and very different stages of disrepair. I don't know that there is a requirement within it to maintain it upright at all times. As it's 100 years old, it's going to start to fall apart. And one of the conditions here was still to resolve the widening. I think maintaining the stone fence, if we don't have to widen Sandersville, we don't have to get closer to the wall. I guess it's that traffic engineering aspect that I'm leery of just agreeing to. I just want to have on the record that I think that those stone fences out there really do define the character of the area and would encourage the developers to do what they can to try to maintain them and, if at all possible, to enhance them. You agree to that? We agree to that, yes. Typically, if the stone fence is in the right-of-way, it's not the landowner's responsibility. It's one of those difficult situations. But we've agreed that we would maintain it to the ordinance even though it is going to be in the right of way. Thank you for making that statement. That's going to be a question. Ms. Beatty? Just to follow up on the concern for the trees, did I understand you to say in response to the concern that when you put the trail that some of the trees or all of the trees would have to be removed? Yes, some of the green vegetation, as Tim mentioned, it's a lot of volunteer stuff. It's not necessarily all the horticulture specimens that were in there. Behind that wall, as it's been unfarmed for several years, there's a lot of volunteer and there's a lot of growth behind that wall. Their picture showed it. So to put a trail in there, put utilities in there to cross the stormwater for Sandersville, there's going to have to be some removal through there. And it's a traditional width trail? Eight foot wide on the cross section. I believe that's been shown since the zone change. How far behind the wall is the trail? It's like 12 feet or 8 feet or 18 feet. Cross section shows the wall, then plus or minus three feet to an eight foot trail, plus or minus five more feet after that gets us to the end of the right of way and the property line starts for the development. Ms. Plumlee? Getting back the numbers and the trees, how many trees will you need to replace? you can remove the S number of trees and then you need to have so many different flyers to replace them. So you can keep it out just approximately. The canopy requirements are 30% of the developed area. If the site was 100% trees, you could remove 70% and not have to replace. You've just got to have 30% at the end of the day. The numbers on this plan developing just under 14 acres. That's 2.4 acres of canopy when it's fully developed. That includes whatever we would keep in the right-of-way, the HOA lots, the street trees. Typically, when we get to a final record plat, there's a note that says each home, in addition to the street tree, has to plant two large trees to meet the canopy requirements. So there's no number, removal one, plant one. It's just 30% of the site at the end of the development. Good answer. Just a second, Mr. Coffin. Mr. Cayley, particularly as far as the HOA area that you're talking about, the green space with the trails and so forth, were you planning to do any landscaping there? Probably. This is so preliminary we haven't gone in. We don't even have grading plans yet to know what would be required. Okay. All right, then. If possible, would you agree to landscaping of that area? Yeah. And I'm thinking particularly along the trails, the trail that's going to be running down the roadway. Yes. The other ball developments have done a lot of landscaping in those HOA areas. This one serves as an extra buffer there where the road is. Instead of having all lots, it's single-loaded through that area. And this trail that we're talking about is more than just what you see here. It's going along this property, along Unit 2, along Unit 1, turns, I believe, onto Greendale as well. So it's a well-involved multi-use trail. Okay, thank you. Let me ask staff or legal one question in regards to this. I presume I'm correct in saying with this being a preliminary subdivision plan, this will allow them to get started with infrastructure, but they will be bringing a final development plan back to us at some point? A record plan. Record plan. That's correct. It would be a record plan. Okay. Mr. Carlton, did you have another question? Just one. First of all, I'm not here to be combative or anything. I know Rory a long time, and he's been great, and he's been helpful in this, and Raina Wiseman in the balls. So we're really just trying to avoid wordsmithing and not, you know, because where that trail is, you know, you have the power. When we were at the last meeting, I thought that trail didn't start until 10 feet from the wall or something. You just said three feet? Three feet behind the wall. Is that it? Okay. And how far is the right-of-way after that? It's about five feet plus or minus past the trail. Past the trail. Right. So, I mean, there, just in that, you're dealing with the potential of five extra feet to get away from the wall and be eight feet away from the wall. If you're three feet on the wall, you're going to tear out every big tree because of the roots. If you're eight feet off the wall, you've got a pretty good shot to leave the majority of them. If you're three feet off the wall, I mean, I've got to believe you're going to be tearing up maybe some of the ground structure for the wall. I don't know. But that's all I'm saying is if the goal is to maintain rock walls and the character and everything and we spend all this money trying to beautify and landscape, and your point was very valid, what is the landscaping plan? Because they show a green space there. I just want to see some, and I'll commit $20,000 to landscape trees. I just want to see it nice. And, I mean, I put it on record because I'll give them $20,000 worth of evergreens if they'll put them in. I just think, you know, we've spent a lot of time trying to preserve buildings, you know, and we're still in fixed buildings. I renovated the Hillemire Garden Shop, you know, it was falling down. And I just would hate to see, you know, this look. That's not what I would consider a lot of landscaping. and that's what the requirements are. So that's all I'm saying. We have a chance to do a little more here and I just would hope that in conjunction with the forester and the developer and Rory and Raina and you all, we do that. Thank you. Thank you. What if we change the section to allow the trail to meander where I don't have to have it at a set distance where it can go through that area back and forth as needed? I have no problem with that. Let me ask you this, Mr. Cayley. You seem to be very cooperative here, which is like you. You do so. I didn't mean to go another direction. is it possible to have a condition to resolve landscaping of trail and location of trail at the time of final development plan or something? Well, yeah, you certified this. That allows us to start construction plans if they want to get started right away. Final record plat, we would have the streets in and the sewers in. We would know of the infrastructure. And I can't imagine having the trail constructed prior to going to plat. So I think at the final record plat stage, we could have a much better idea of where that trail would meander through there. So if you want to look at it at the final record plat stage, that seems reasonable. Okay. Staff, any thoughts on that? Agreed. Mr. Cayley, that seems very reasonable to take a closer look at it at that time. Okay. Yes, Ms. Phillips? But when you're siting your water and sewer lines, I mean, will there be attention given to spare this particular area behind that fence so that there is room for meandering, or are we going to push bulldozers all the way up as close as we can? Now, the sewers will go where it's low. I mean, we've got to get the stormwater off there. I don't even know where the sanitary sewers will tie in yet, whether they go towards Greendale or itself. My concern, Rory, is that it might be too late to do it at Final Platt because everything else will have already been sited and we'll be dealing with the leftover property. Yes. But, well, it's still going to be the right-of-way to be dedicated. and as we go forward, it's a possibility that as we go forward, if traffic and engineering and the others don't want any widening, that we could probably go to Platt and not have anything constructed through that area. You'd have your storm sewers. Engineering will review that and make sure where the storm and sanitary connections are, and those have to be in the low areas for gravity. But above that, I think we could, I don't know that we would get in there and tear anything up beyond what's needed just for those utilities until we've got the plat recorded, the right way dedicated. You can start getting people moving in. Then you have a use for the trail and you start putting that in. The only choice we have in really is final subdivision plat. Okay. Mr. Cotham, would you be okay with that language? Yes, I think that sounds reasonable in conjunction with what you'd said about landscaping and tree protection plan, because it's already a conditioned tree protection plan, but if you don't sort of note it, I feel like some of those big trees are going to get taken out by a sewer line or a trail. So I'm a lawyer too, so I worry about these things. All right. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee. I have a question. How wide would the meandering trails be? We'll keep the trail that eight foot wide. And what we're able to do as we mander, you're essentially having 15 feet behind that wall, and you can locate the trail left or right through there to avoid a rock wall here, avoid a tree there, and it makes the trail a little more interesting to walk anyway. Any other questions from the commission? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Okay, thank you, Mr. Cayley. Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Chair, I just want to be sure that I understand. We were talking about adding number 13 to the staff recommendations to resolve the landscaping and trail location on the final development plan. Is that what I heard final? That's a possibility, yes, ma'am. And then the tree protection is actually covered under number five, right? Is that correct? It would be, yes. Any other discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept Plan 2012-100PSFH property as the staff recommends the 12 recommendations, adding number 13 to read Resolve Landscaping and Trail Location on Final Development Plan. Yes. Yes, sir. I believe that final record is not right. There will be no final development plan. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. Final record plats will follow. Yes, sir. Ms. Beatty, you okay with that? Yes. Okay. Motion's been made for approval with 13 conditions, 13 reading, resolve, landscaping, and location of trail at the time of final record plat. Do you need a second on this? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval, which is plan 2012-100PSFH property. Ms. Blanton. Did we need to make an addition to number 9? Did Mr. Cayley ask for some additional wording on that? I didn't write down what it was. You did. Yes, there was. Yes. You can put that on the overhead. It had to do with water quality. Yes, with the approval of water quality. And Ms. Beatty, would you amend your motion to include that? It's been second. Do we have to vote on it first and then go back and amend it, or can I amend it? I would accept that. Okay. Yes, let's amend it to add with approval of water quality. Thank you. And the second, Mr. Cravens, you're agreeable to that? I agree. Okay. We're back to the motion now. The motion has been made and seconded for approval, making two changes, on 9 and adding number 13, which was read, and I believe as stated upon the screen. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Thank you, Mr. Cawthon. Next would be at the bottom of page 2, Plan 2012-102P, Tuscany Units 2 and 3. and yes, and I'm sorry, we do have a revision which is on the green sheet Thank you. division plan for property located at 1970 Winchester Road. The property located, this is Sir Barton Way, this is Old Rosebud, this is Pascoli Place. We recently had a final development plan for apartments at this intersection and we've previously had an Alzheimer's nursing home facility at this intersection with via medici here and ogden way this direction this preliminary subdivision plan is for property in this area shown here it's r3 and is recommended or is proposed for 113 residential single-family residential dwelling units the staff and technical committee and subdivision committee recommended approval at its last meeting subject to 13 conditions as noted on your agenda. We did receive a revised plan that does revise that number of conditions down to number eight. One item that was brought up as a result of this revision is a post-development floodplain that's outlined here in blue, and the resulting 25-foot floodplain setback yields a number of lots right in this area, undevelopable at this time. They note it as a hundred-year backwater beyond this tree protection area that is to be eliminated at a later date with an amended flood study. The staff's recommendation that you see on number seven is to remove lots one through nine from the plan at this time. To leave it on there would be to have a conflict in non-buildable lots that we think they could bring back at a later date once they've amended that stormwater information. Condition number eight, Barbara, if you can flip the pages, relates to... Actually, leave it there for one second. There was previous notes on an amended development plan related to this intersection at Sir Barton and Old Rosebud and a signal to be installed at such time that traffic warrants meet it. This was on the development plan for this entire what's called Hamburg Place community in this area here. If you can switch to it, Barb. The notes state that it's a cost to be shared by the developers of Tuscany and the Hamburg area. Again, that's notes 13 and 14. We met with traffic and discussed it. I believe they discussed it with the applicant as well. They could speak to the timing on that, but I don't think it meets the warrants yet. But the study and that planning is going forward. We did want those two notes added to this plan as a way to carry forward the discussion. It will probably be in future developments of Tuscany that the traffic signal will be installed. But again, planning is just moving the issue forward on this development plan, this preliminary subdivision plan. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Taylor? Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Applicant? Anything to add? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Cayley. We are agreeable to conditions 1 through 6 and 8, but we would like to have Number 7 removed. Microphone. The area that he's talking about is an EA Partners flood study. This was done in 2005. it's back before the area was developed. What we did is we took a whole picture of all of Tuscany, did a flood study of what we thought the development would be, where the lots would be, where we had, you know, areas of water and backwater. Backwater is nothing more than that. As it rains, this is the draw. It's going to go down through here. This is, based on our study, this is not a FEMA floodplain. There's no regulatory about having lots or fixing filling in these areas and developing it. What we're asking for is this corner, these lots, this street all be approved now. And when we get to the point where we're building and we're submitting our construction documents to engineering, we will have to amend our flood study. We haven't amended it since the 05, and we've got unit one. We're starting to get a little bit here in 6, and as we're starting to develop more, when this is an eminent development, then we will amend a flood study. The area we're talking about, elevation 980, elevation 970, elevation 960. If we're worried about, someone thinks that this backwater is actually going to be underwater, this would have to be 20 feet high here. these houses would be completely under for the water to be ponded back to this point. So this is just one of those backwater studies. Any ditch has backwater. Even curbs and gutters have backwater as it's flowing through there. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Mr. Taylor? For some reason, I don't remember this discussion in subdivision. It's because the floodplain and the setback wasn't on the plane at the time. And they submitted a revised plan that added this area. The biggest problem is that they're showing a floodplain setback off of it, which is what yields no buildable area on the lots. If it's not a FEMA-regulated floodplain, then this 25-foot floodplain setback off of it would not be necessary. They've sort of created this condition, and this is really the first chance we've had to discuss it with the applicant, that what they're showing us here yields no buildable lots. It's the information that they presented to us. They would need to amend, take off that. There needs to be buildable area on those lots for us to not have a conflict like this. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from commission members? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? I understand, Mr. Traylor, you said we had a revision. This revision came in. and I would have hoped that some of this discussion could have taken place between this revision and now. The only thing I can see is we go forward with it since it's on the map, or they continue it to try and get it resolved until we can clarify it. Well, when we received the plan, we let the applicant know there was a concern here, And we've discussed what we thought would be a way to resolve it and move forward with this plan. That was, again, our intention was to move this one forward. All right. Thank you. Ms. Mundy? I guess my question is, this is not in a FEMA floodplain, correct? This is only an EA partner study, so it's not in a FEMA floodplain. So is there not some way that we could denote that to move this forward, that we could say that it will be resolved going forward, that it is not in a FEMA floodplain? I'm unsure. I would have to ask engineering if that's something that they can do at this time. I don't know. Okay. Chris, do you think that's a question we could get answered today? Yeah. Yeah. He's an engineer. Yeah. Mr. Newman? Yeah. Okay. Okay. I wonder if a possible solution would be to denote the lots that are affected by that and restrict recordation until such time as they have revised the flood study and then reflect the revised post-developed floodplain on the final record plat. Would that be a workable solution? Okay. I think Mr. Taylor is over there. Come to the microphone, Mr. Taylor, and express your thoughts. Yeah, I think it would be appropriate to have that change be done before we record the lots, if that's something engineering is comfortable with doing. Okay. Do we have language? Is anyone working on language for that? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thought I saw someone writing off my heart. If that works for engineering, that will work for us as well. I will try and really denote lots 139 will not be recorded until a revised flood study is submitted. Is that correct, Mr. Shelley? Okay. It is. Mr. Newman, you okay with that? Yes. And applicant? Everybody's okay with that. Okay. I'll close this part of the hearing, and we can move on for any further discussion among commission members and or a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of Plan 2012-102P with the revised notes and the revised staff recommendation. Thank you. Do we have a second? The motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2012-102P, Tuscany Units 2 and 3, with the eight conditions, changing the wording on number 7 as shown on the screen. please vote when it comes up on your screen motion passes motion still passes thank you next on our agenda we move to page 3 it is a re-approval at the top of the page Plan 2005-3P Patchen-Wilkes Unit 1, and then we'll follow up with Unit 2A. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next plans appear on page 3. View agenda, items E and F. They are both preliminary subdivision plans. They are both for the Patch and Wilkes development beyond the left side of Winchester Road, the north side, between Hamburg Place and New Circle Road. The first plan, Plan Item E, is Plan 2005-3P, is Patchen-Rilkes, Unit 1, amended, located at 1811 Winchester Road. It is here for re-approval by the Commission. The applicant has requested re-approval. The Planning Commission originally approved the plan on January 13, 2005, with the original conditions. conditions, urban county engineers' acceptance of drainage, storm, and sanitary, urban county traffic engineers' approval of street cross-sections and access, urban foresters' approval of the tree preservation plan, the correction of site statistics, the Division of Fires' approval of revised street and alleyway layout. The applicant now requests approval of the plan since the approval has expired. The staff does recommend re-approval subject to the original conditions and revising the following condition, that the urban forester's approval of tree preservation plan and the required street tree information. At this time, we'll turn it over to you for questions. Thank you. Any questions from commission members? Mr. Kaley, are you agreeable to the conditions? Yes, we are. Anything to add? No. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or motion. Ms. Blanton. Move re-approval of Plan 2005-3P Patch and Wilkes Unit 1 with the subject to the original conditions with the revised condition number 3. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made in segment for re-approval of Plan 2005-3P, Batchelan Wilkes Unit 1. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Yes, sir. Unit 2. The next plan, yes, sir, is Unit 2, Item F on your agenda. It is also being put forth by the applicant for re-approval. It's Plan 2006-74P, a preliminary subdivision plan for Patch and Wilkes Unit 2A. It was originally approved on May 11, 2006 by the Planning Commission and granted another one-year extension on May 10, 2007. The original conditions were Urban County Engineers' acceptance of drainage, storm, and sanitary sewers, Urban County Traffic Engineers' approval of street cross-sections and access, building inspections approval of landscaping, arterial screening, and required street tree information approval of street names by E911 staff urban foresters approval of tree preservation plan the green space plan is approval of the treatment of greenways, bike trails resolution and timing of Thunderstick Drive construction and the showing of the 400 foot spacing for access That approval has since expired, and it is now up for re-approval. The staff does recommend re-approval subject to the original conditions and revising the following conditions. The building inspections approval of landscaping and arterial screening, and the urban foresters approval of tree preservation plan and required street tree information. This time we'll turn it over to the Commission for questions and comments. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cayley, you agreeable to the conditions? We're agreeable. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission members? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or a motion. Ms. Blanton. Move re-approval of Plan 2006-74P, Patch and Wilkes Unit 2A, subject to the original eight conditions with revised conditions number 3 and 5. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for re-approval of Plan 2006-74P. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. I believe we'll move on down right at the bottom of page 3. Hamburg Place Office Park, Lots 4, 5, and 13. It's Plan 2012-108L. And I believe we will also hear, in conjunction with this, a final development plan, which is shown on page 6, item D, DP 2012-82, Hamburg Place Office, Park Lot 4, amended. Mr. Martin. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. As the Chairman stated, we're going to present two plans to you at this time. Item B, page 3, Plan 2012-108F Hamburg Place Office Park, as well as the Development Plan, that is on page 6 of your agenda, DP 2012-82 Hamburg Place Office Park, lot 4 amended. This is out, of course, in the Hamburg development. You can see the aerial photograph on the screen. The area... I don't see a little red dot. Oh, no wonder. There we go. I got it. That's Meyers right there. That might help you get your bearings. There's Man of War, Liberty Road, the elementary school. There's residential developments in this area. Here is Alley Sheba Way, Bender Way. The area in question is this area along this side of Bender Way. The two Hamburg plans that you just re-approved on your consent agenda, I might add, were for this side of Bender Way in this area right here. So we're just right across the street right there. So the record plat creates three lots, as I stated, on this side of Vendor Way, Alashiba coming in at this direction. Lot 4, which is just over three acres. The lot here is Lot 5, which is 9.8 acres, and it is subject of your development plan amendment. This is the remnant piece up through here, which is 8.75 acres. on your development plan, lot 4, lot 5, the amendment, and the rest of the lot up in this area along Vendor Way. The development plan that you see is a proposal for a three-story office building, 97,500 square feet with the associated parking located here. It will be accessed by a driveway at this intersection of these two streets, Vendor and Alashiva Way. The staff's understanding that the UK Credit Union is going to develop this site sometime in the next year or two. This plan, both plans actually, this one, are subject to a waiver request that has been handed out to you and should be at your seats. the plat was reviewed by your subdivision committee it was recommended for approval subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda again the most significant one being provided that you do grant a waiver to article 6-8 it was a late plan it will be reviewed by the technical committee prior to certification. The development plan was also reviewed by your subdivision committee, again that's on page 6, and was recommended for approval subject to our standard conditions of development plan sign-offs, and again provided that you grant a waiver to 6-8 of the land subdivision regulations. There were a couple of clean-ups items associated with the development plan, one of which is to revise the plan information or certify the record plan, 2011-25F, that is what you just re-approved on the consent agenda today. That will have to be certified or they will have to adjust their development plan accordingly to reflect the recorded lot pattern. It's just a clean-up item. Certify and record the final record plan, 2012-108, prior to development plan certification. That is this plat. This is the plat that creates the lots that you see on the development plan. So they need to certify that, record that first to create the lot that you see here, particularly for development. There was a discussion item on the Hamburg Office Place development plan, and this was a carryover from the previous development plan on lot 12, where there had been a, that again was just re-approved on your consent agenda. And it was a discussion that involved turn lane improvements initially on Man of War. That discussion evolved into a concern about lane improvements and traffic improvements on Ali Shiba Way, Vendor Way, and areas inside the development and away from Man of War. Staff has been informed that the city, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County government, is going to provide, construct, pay for, pardon me, I got myself disoriented here for a second, intersection improvements alight at Al-Sheba Way. It has been fully funded for all necessary improvements. So that includes turn lanes, which was the item that we discussed at Subdition Committee. There was some concern there wasn't enough budget in the allocated money for those improvements to provide turn lanes. And it was our traffic engineers concerned that the intersection would not function correctly with the light if there were no turn lanes. We were informed that the budget is adequate and they are going to do the full improvements to that intersection sometime this fall. It's staff's intersection. So item 12 on your development plan review, discuss possible need for turn late improvements. That can be deleted because it's our understanding that, as I just stated, that's going to be done by the Lexington-Fayette-Irban County government. Your waiver request that you see before you concerns the termination of Ali Sheba Way as it enters into this lot. When this plan was originally laid out in this entire area, all through here you can see the plan. When it was originally done, Ali Sheba terminated in a cul-de-sac. And they had a different lotting pattern. Obviously, with the proposed lighting to develop this, there is no need for them to develop Ali Sheba and terminate it in a cul-de-sac. This is similar, you may recall, to the Louis Place apartments that was done where they terminated a street right at the entrance into those apartments. That's the more recent one that you all approved, a very similar request. They are proposing to terminate it here. They're going to demark, put a material in here of a different material, whatever that may be, brick, concrete, something to clearly mark the intersection and the transition. Thank you. That's attached to the back of your waiver request. It shows how they're going to show that and make it clear that you are entering from public to private property, as well as this is going to become a three-way stop. As I stated, we've mentioned the Louie place and the apartments. You may also recall out on citation the Trilogy nursing home had a similar waiver granted by this body to terminate a local street at a driveway apron into that property. This is an identical request to those. Your staff has reviewed it. We have talked with traffic engineering. We all agree that this waiver is appropriate. It would be a hardship for the applicant, obviously, to build a public street into a development when it's proposed to be this office development, a large lot development. And the intent of the land subdivision regulations will be met, and public safety will be protected with this particular configuration. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Seeing none, thank you. I'm absent. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. On the plat, we are in agreement with the conditions set forth on this agenda. And then on the development plan, let's see. I guess I would, in general, we're in agreement with the conditions. Condition number 11, certify and record the final record plan. I would just ask for clarification as to why it is required to be certified prior to the development plan being certified. That's typically not the way it's done. And I was wondering if there's a reason in this case it is required, so if maybe staff could answer that. Other than that, we're in agreement with the conditions. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Mr. Martin, can you provide clarification on number 11 of the development plan? Pardon me, we were discussing another issue. I understand the question is why that plat has to be recorded. Well, it's a very simple answer. We currently have an approved lot line on a different plat that does not match the proposed one on this plat and the proposed one on this development plan. So we're asking that the plat be recorded to create their proposed lotting pattern. There's conflicts. Those with you on the subdivision committee may recall we went over the fact that there were about three plats and three development plans floating around out here, and we just wanted it all straightened out. And one of those issues was a conflict with that lot liner. They don't exist as they show them on their development plan at this time, so we just ask that they. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Carter, you're okay with that? Yes. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, any further questions from the commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. We need motions with the waiver on each plan. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'd like to make a motion to approve Plan 2012-108F with the conditions. Okay. And noting the findings on the waiver? Well, does the waiver go with that one? Yes, it does go with the record plan. Okay, with the waiver. Findings. Findings. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval of Plan 2012-103F. Oops, I'm sorry, I read the wrong number. Motion's been made for approval of Plan 2012-108F, Hamburg Place Office Park, noting the findings for the waiver to be in compliance. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Next. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move approval of DP 2012-82 with the findings of the waiver and also deleting number 12. Thank you. motion has been made for approval do we have a second and seconded please vote when it comes up on your screen Motion passes. Thank you. Next would be on page 4, item D, plan 2006-151F, Glen Creek, Unit 3C. we do have a final development plan on that as well which is on page 7 item G Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, once again, I am up here with a development plan and a record plat for the same property. The record plan is Item D, Plan 2006-151F, Glen Creek, Unit 3C, Section 1. And the development plan that is associated with this plan is on page 7 of your agenda. It is DP 2006-103, Glen Creek, Unit 3. Both of these plans that you see before you are re-approvals. the development plan is for an area here of about 17-18 acres it is located in an area let's see Taits Creek would be right over here in the old Jonestown settlement down in this area in the low area Taits Creek would be here there's your vicinity map back this way Appian Way curls around and heads back towards Armstrong Mill Road And this is that area in the center of those streets. And we have right here Appian Crossing that comes off Appian Way. This area, the townhouses have been developed. You just recently saw a plan that proposed an assisted living on this. That plan has been withdrawn. It did not receive funding. So the applicant has brought back to you the original plan from 2006, which amended this. The plan actually predates it and goes back to the late 90s when it was originally approved. But they are now asking for re-approval of their townhouse development. The plat that you see before you is also a re-approval of a plat for this bank of townhouses right here. It is creating 10 lots so they can proceed and build off this developed plan and then lot these townhouses. That is why they are before you today for re-approval. The conditions are much the same on these plans. There is one slight difference. As you all are aware, street trees and landscaping have changed from building inspection to the forester so that the building inspection is just approving the landscaping. There is a slight change to the reapproval on the development plan, which is on the back page of your agenda. where we have two conditions. Staff recommends that they denote possible variances for Units 1 through 23 and revise the configuration of the floodplain or revise the building locations as necessary. The regulatory floodplain has changed in the interim since this plan was approved. And there is a slight conflict, not on the record plat, but up in this area. of the townhouses. And again, this plan was started back in the 90s before the regulations that NAOA operate on exist, but we are asking that they update the information and they will need to address the conflict that could exist along this bank of townhouses. The primary conflict will be with the 25-foot setback for which they could request a variance from the Board of Adjustment. At the time that these were approved in 2006, there was a waiver granted as well as a finding on access easements. You can see by the plan that that's not a public street system. Once again, a development of this type which is not uncommon is utilizing access easements and the planning commission at that time recommended approval of that waiver as well as making the finding that the access easements would function in this circumstance. Staff is recommending re-approval of these plans as well as the waiver and the finding. And if you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Yes, sir. Rob Sims, landowner with Santa Barbara Land Company. We're fine with all those conditions. You're in agreement with all the conditions? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on these plans? Any questions from the commission? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for motions. Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chairman, I want to make recommendation of approval of Plan 2006-151F, Glen Creek, with the nine noted conditions and the two staff recommended revisions, items 3 and 5. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for re-approval of Plan 2006-151L, Glen Creek Unit 3C, Section 1. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. And now for the development plan. Mr. Chairman, I recommend recommendation of DP 2006-103 Glen Creek Unit 3 with the 11 noted conditions and the two staff recommended revisions, items 12 and 13. Thank you. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded for the reapproval of DP 2006-103 Glen Creek Unit 3. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Thank you. Motion passes. We move down to the bottom of page 4. This would be another re-approval. Plan 2008-77F, East Bridford Land and Development Company. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I lost my agenda there for a moment. I had to locate it. Thank you. Jumping back and forth between the development plans and the record plans. It took me for a minute, and then I set my agenda down. But thank you very much. At the bottom of page four, Plan 2008-77F, East Bridgeford Land and Development Company, Kingston Hall. This, too, is a re-approval of a 10-acre track located out on Newtown Pike. If you look over here, this is the preliminary development plan and subdivision plan. It kind of shows you the big picture out here. This is the Providence Parkway. This is the back of the property headed towards Russell Cave that has not yet been developed. The parkway has been constructed to this point. You have Stanton Way down here. with the restaurants and motel development associated with I-75 and I-64. Here is your Newtown Pike corridor headed north. This is the lot in question. And again, you can see a close-up of the lot at this location, or I mean on the plat here. It is a re-approval. It was reapproved once before and then subsequently an extension was granted. The staff is recommending reapproval of this plan subject to the original conditions that you can see on the bottom of page 4 and continuing to page 5. The same conditions as before. There are two changes that are typical of the change in the rules, and that is building inspections' approval of landscaping and now the urban forester's approval of required street tree information. Staff has added one slight condition, that they revise the boundary of the EMP scenic easement per the approved plans, and that is, again, it does not run straight and parallel to this proposed property line, but actually runs at a slight angle like this, and that needs to be adjusted on the plan. And again, with that, the staff is recommending re-approval of the plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Cayley, in agreement? We are in agreement. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Any questions from the Commission? If not, we'll close this part of the hearing, and I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. I move that we re-approve Plan 2008-77F East Bridgewood Land and Development Company with the original 12 conditions, adding the three staff-recommended conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for re-approval of Plan 2008-77L. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Page 6. Page 6, at the bottom of page 6, I think, is our next plan, which is DP 2012-83, Lexington Medical Arts Professional Incorporated. We do have revised conditions, which is on a tan sheet that you have in front of you. All right, the next item on your agenda is at the very bottom of page 6, item E, DP 2012-83, Lexington Medical Arts Professional Incorporated, Lot 3 amended. This is for property located at 2368 Professional Heights Drive. This proposal is located at Trader Joe's that we had a development plan for recently. Last year it's here, Lowry Lane, Nicholsville Road, and Malibu Drive. There's an access into the development off of Malibu and East Lowry, as well as through the front on Nicholsville Road. The purpose of this amendment is to add an extended stay hotel, four stories, 105 rooms to this professional office zone. The P1-B1 zone line runs sort of like this throughout the property. These are professional office buildings in the B1, but they are the B1 zone is this direction. It does propose the development to be oriented such that these two large trees are preserved in this area as green space. The subdivision committee recommended postponement in its last meeting. The final question that the staff had at that time was related to stormwater detention. and the drawing you see on the left is a stormwater management plan that was done back in 2004. To orient you, this is the Trader Joe's area here. This is where you come in. This is where they're proposing the development in this area. Again, the access off of Lowry kind of breaks into the sub-areas of the detention, and this is an area where they showed an extra area of detention if needed in this corner behind their building that they're proposing at this time. That information was given to staff at the subdivision committee, and in the interim we met with engineering to discuss whether or not that study and the stormwater plan for this development was adequate for the proposed development at this time. The engineering has indicated to us that there is sufficient area for floodwater for stormwater on the site to be handled in the rear area here if additional stormwater facilities are needed. And with that, the staff did present to you a revised recommendation with 16 conditions. Number 15, to identify the stormwater basin and the location in the northeast corner of the lot. And another, number 16, to resolve a walking track conflict with that proposed stormwater detention area to the approvals of divisions of engineering and water quality. They do show an amenity walking trail going through that area that could have grade issues if they were to take it down and into a basin. So some relocation of that could be necessary. But if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Taylor? Nope. Thank you, sir. Applicant, anything to add? Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Roger Leidenberger. We're in agreement with the staff's recommendation and with the 16 conditions and request approval. I'll be happy to answer questions. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Leidenberger? Done at this time. Mr. Taylor? I probably should mention that it is on the revised recommendation, but this plan does require conditional use approval from the Board of Adjustment, and that would be required to be denoted on this plan prior to being certified. So the Board does have to act on the use for the extended stay hotel. Yeah, that's number 14. Okay, thank you. Others in the audience wish to speak on this? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, staff, good afternoon. My name is Mary Ware. I am an adjoining property owner to this proposed development, and I am here today to represent a large majority of all the other adjoining property owners on Heatherway and Lowry Lane, as well as other concerned members of our community and neighborhood who feel that they will be negatively impacted by this proposed development. We stand in agreement as of last night when we last met to the following reasons for our opposition. All due respect to the engineers, as a person who sits at the lower east end of this property development, one of two homes there, the other being a vacant lot. We have had years with basement flooding, standing water in our yards, and manhole covers lifted in our street on Heather Way about this much as stormwater overflows into the streets with heavy rains. We are not confident nor satisfied that more water runoff from the proposed development will be contained and directed away from our homes. It was acknowledged to me that there have been changes since the 2002 last stormwater study that was proposed with the development of Trader Joe's. They are slight changes, but nevertheless, they have not necessarily been identified, addressed, nor submitted to city engineers, to my knowledge, when last spoken to them yesterday. So we feel like the impact of this development and Trader Joe's is truly unknown at this time to satisfy us in regards to stormwater drainage. A buffer around our adjoining properties was offered. It's not listed in any of the notations for this meeting, but some type of a barrier was suggested by Mr. Stidham, and he suggested that perhaps it might be a continuation of the flatboard fence that Trader Joe started to block off our property. However, this was a mere mention. It was not truly defined nor proposed formally. And we feel that this type of barrier will not adequately address the issues of light and noise generated by the 24-hours, 7-day-a-week, 365-day operation of this proposed facility. Nor will it adequately address the issues of privacy and security to the satisfaction of the residents that adjoin this property. Residents also ask that the natural seasonal buffer along the fence line, the plants that are already currently growing there remain in place and preserved. The invasion of privacy from the towering height of this four-story development leaves us all worried about the ability of patrons and staff to peer into our backyards, kitchens, and bedrooms. A walking track allows patrons, staff, and others not associated with the hotel to have opportunities to observe neighbors, their yards, and homes by day and by night. This problem has a potential to lend itself to crime, and again, these concerns provide evidence for a substantial barrier. Lights and noise from the everyday, all-year-long operation of such a facility will be very disturbing to our older, well-established, and relatively quiet neighborhood. Lights from building floodlights, parking lot lighting, Car lights, walking track lighting will invade and disturb every resident within sight of this development. Noise from the very operation of this development, such as air conditioning generators, dumpster use, emptying and emptying, deliveries, outdoor pool area, entertainment area, walking track use, and the constant 24-7 comings and goings of cars and patrons will elevate the noise level of this peaceful and quiet community throughout the night. Traffic can't help but be negatively impacted by this development. Considering an anticipated high capacity of patrons of this establishment, for multiple year-round events in Lexington, such as football and basketball, openings at Keeneland, horse sales, conventions, and other scheduled activities, it is clear to see that a potential 129 or more cars exiting or entering the facility entering the facility will present major bottlenecks and impede traffic flow. At normal high-volume traffic times of the day, hotel patrons attempting to exit Lowry Lane will compete with exiting and entering commuters not only from our neighborhood but also from the commuters of the Central Baptist Hospital parking lot just across from its entrance. Cars presently parked in the two lots on Lowry Lane that will be obtained by this hotel adventure will be no doubt forced to park back on the street. And it is, I believe it's 31 parking spaces, and it's usually anywhere from 50 to 90 percent full at all times. So they will be put back on the street, providing a hindrance on Lowry Lane. Exiting traffic from this facility will be negatively impacted by the small island presently in the entrance to the development off of Lowry Lane, which suggests that exiting traffic from this facility must make a right-hand turn back into the, well, not must, but it's suggested that they make a right-hand turn because of the way the island is constructed. It's a small island, but it puts traffic back into the neighborhood to have to turn around to exit off of Nicholasville Road. The position of a dumpster at the east end of the property that adjoins my neighbor is an issue that has been unsatisfactorily addressed by the developers in response to the technical committee and subdivision committee's request that it be repositioned elsewhere. With the present positioning of two dumpsters in the same relative area behind my house that are associated with the present professional building, the addition of more dumpsters in the same area is not acceptable. Dumpsters that will create excessive noise with everyday use, weekly pickups, the attraction of rats, possums, raccoons, and other vermin with the dumping of food from the operation, and foul orders in the same vicinity where my neighbors currently entertain their small grandchildren and where we sit on our deck is unacceptable. And finally, it is still unclear to the eventual use of the vacant lot, which is two doors down from my house, at 2337 Heather Way, which accidentally came to our attention after the first map was sent out to residents. It was an amended map that we discovered that also included this developing purchasing this vacant lot. The fourth amended final development plan states, The purpose of this amendment is to add buildable area, revise parking, and circulation. It goes on in notes number three. Access to this property shall be limited to the points indicated hereon or as may be amended. Item 11 states there shall be no access to Heatherway from this property. Item 14 states, Lot 1 at 2337 Heatherway, zoned R1C, may be developed as a single-family use without further amendment of this development. Our questions and concerns are, what's it going to be? What are the developers' future use of this property? Is it going to be buildable area for development, revised parking and circulation, amended to appeal for a zone change or a pass-through, or used for a single-family dwelling? This property is zoned P1. Presently, what we have behind us are professional office buildings. We have one level, and as it ascends towards Nicholasville Road, it goes to two-story. operations that work 8 to 5 of the evening parking lots there's no one there it's quiet, peaceful no weekend traffic we feel that to put this operation on the edge of our community is inappropriate and so for these reasons we have to object to this proposal thank you thank you Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, any questions from the Planning Commission members at this point? Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, Ms. Plumlee. Yes, thank you, Ms. Ware, for coming to address some concerns. And I wonder if the staff could answer the question that she raised about the elevation of the proposed lot as to will the trees or the fence, or will that be enough to screen what are her concerns? As far as what's enough, I'll let the applicant discuss that. I'll tell you, there are no planned or noted changes. We've asked for, on a previous version of this plan, to get the full perimeter denoted as tree protection area, basically all the way up here and all the way across the property. The tree line that's pretty extensive on the site right now is all to be retained in addition to the two very large trees here. How tall are the trees? I don't know how tall, but they're mature trees. And I'll let the applicant speak to what they've discussed with the neighborhood regarding buffering. Hold on just a second, Mr. Layden. Mr. Berkley? Try and group everything. My question is in regards to this lot and the need to really have this included at all in this development plan. Well, it's been historically a part of this development plan. This is an amended development plan. It's owned by these folks, and it's been amended in the past as such. And it looks like originally it probably was added to handle additional stormwater facilities. There's the pipes daylight in this area and go back underground here, and there's a drainage area in this area that kind of goes over the lot line. it's made very clear through the amendments to this plan that there's to be no access to be no development and that it can't be developed as anything other than single family the staff is not uncomfortable with that lot remaining on the plan and the restrictions on it make it pretty clear what can it cannot be done on it any other questions yes i have a question for staff about process. Since this is going to require a conditional use permit from the Board of Adjustment, why are we looking at a development plan? Why don't they look at the development plan? And I'm also apprehensive approving a development plan when we're still a couple of weeks out from the Board of Adjustment even having heard the case. Actually, the conditional use permit was applied for before the development plan was filed. They are independent applications, obviously, with the Planning Commission having jurisdiction over the amended development plan. The Board of Adjustment application was postponed last month in September, and it is now scheduled to be heard at the end of October. I'm trying to remember the other part of your question, the timing. Why are we approving the development plan for the conditional use? You are not approving the conditional use? No, we're approving the development plan, which shows the conditional use. Yes, the development plan does propose to change the building from the two office buildings that are on the current development plan. So in order to construct this facility, they will need the approval of the Board of Adjustment for the requested conditional use permit, and they will need approval of the Planning Commission for this amended development plan. The site plan that the Board of Adjustments will review is, in essence, the same plan that you're reviewing. Okay. That's what I was wondering is why there's a site plan and a development plan, and it seems premature for us to approve this without the Board of Adjustments decision. Ms. Beatty? I was going to ask other questions. Ms. Beatty? This is probably for staff as well. And I don't want to get too sidetracked with this, but I think we saw a similar application maybe last week or week before of a hotel being against a residential neighborhood. Can you explain, and it had also a conditional use, how is this one different from? Okay, the previous one you had two weeks ago was for a zone change from B1 to B3, and I don't believe there was a conditional use application associated with that. It was the zone change. It was the zone change. The significant differences between this plan and the one you saw a couple of weeks ago is that that one was a six-story building. This one is four, and this one, I'm not sure what the distance was that they had proposed on the previous one, but this one is 48 feet at its closest point to the residential along Lowry. The previous development plan that was approved for this site was two P1 office buildings with a four-story one right up against the tree area and a three-story building in this area. But that is the significant difference between the zone change that you saw a few weeks ago and what this plan shows. Okay, thank you. And one other question, this might be for the applicant when he comes back to the microphone. I'm sorry, the neighbor that addressed it talked about a buffering, and can someone address how they plan on aligning barriers there? Mr. Leidenberger, I think if you address a buffering, I might take care of. Could you ask that question again, please? The residents, I'm sorry, what was your name? I'm sorry, what was your name? Where. Where, I'm sorry, okay. This is where I talked about adequate buffering from the development, between the development and the neighborhood. Can you address that? Yes, and also I wanted to complete an answer to Mrs. Plumley about the same issue. The landscape ordinance requires, when a professional use joins a residential use, there are two options. We can do a double six-foot hedge with trees, or we can do a six-foot fence. We have a little bit of a space limitation there because there are some storm sewers along the east side of this property along Mrs. Ware's property line. So we've chosen to do a six-foot solid fence and to preserve the tree lines along the east and the north side of our property. That keeps us in compliance with the landscape orders. Mr. Taylor, anything bad? Every time. I do want to point out that while that required screening is not shown on the plane in the form of noting an area where the fence is located, what building inspection requires in reviewing these plans at the technical committee is that there is a space for those areas to be met and then a note that says that they will meet the landscaping requirements under the ordinance. And so what they look for at TRC is an opportunity in dimensionally locations that's adequate to meet those requirements. But they are not specifically mentioned with a fence on the plan, but it is taken care of via a note on the development plan. Okay. One second, Ms. Ware. Any other questions from Commission members at this point? Yes. Ms. Mundy. I know one of the concerns is the traffic. Is it not true that this would have less traffic than an office building, an office park? Okay, come on. Yes, first of all, it's an extended stay hotel. And we're told by the Hilton people that the average stay is about a week. So it's not like an everyday turnover of traffic. There are 105 rooms, so the traffic volume is considerably less than it would have been with two medical office buildings that were approved on the previous issue of the same development plan. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Hold on just a second, Ms. Ware. Chris, if you would help me work through some of these other situations. I know I remember a statement from Mr. Leidenberger saying that he would not let a dumpster location stand in the way of this. Where are we with moving a dumpster or relocating a dumpster? It is a condition. I've spoken with Mr. Leidenberger during the week this week and that they were ready to submit a revised plan if necessary to show it, but they understand it's a condition that they will have to meet to move that back. Should the plan be approved, the plan cannot be certified with the dumpster in that location. Okay. Okay. And as far as lighting, noise, I know I've seen conditions in the past as far as shoebox lighting, whatever, deflecting downward to prevent the spillage of lighting and so forth. Is that required or taken care of on any of these sign-offs? I don't believe lighting is handled under any sign-offs because I don't believe it's specified under the ordinance. But we have had notes stating that lighting will be directed down and away, which could be added to the plan. Okay. And just to add, that is a requirement of the ordinance where commercial or buts are at the end. Okay. It will be directed away from residential. Okay. All right. One other thing as far as the traffic island coming out onto East Lowry. I know Captain Bowen made some sort of comment at the subdivision committee that maybe it was tight, but he could get in there. I think those were pretty much his words. Are there any discussions as far as removal of that traffic island? We've not had any discussions with traffic related to that, no. Okay. Captain Bowen, do you want to speak to anything? Hello, Captain Bolton with Division of Fire. I have worked with Mr. Roger Leidenberger, and he has agreed to remove the island. Okay. Any more questions for me? No, I think that takes care of it. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And Chris, I presume that would be on a sign-off somewhere. Okay. All right, then. Ms. Ware. Hold on one second. One second. I promise I'll let you. Mr. Berkeley, a question? I've just got, I guess, a procedural question again, too. if we were to approve this and then changes were to come or be recommended by Board of Adjustment, would we not have to see this again? Not necessarily. We had a similar situation with the Alzheimer's facility at Shoreside Drive not too long ago where the development plan was approved by the Planning Commission. The Board of Adjustment application required them to move some facilities on that plan, on that site plan and the changes were carried over to the development plan prior to certification. Unless it was something related that staff couldn't handle, I believe under a minor, like parking or increased square footage, that sort of thing, then it would have to come back to you guys. But for anything that doesn't involve adding square footage or losing parking, it could be taken care of through the board's approval and then subsequently when this plan is certified. Ms. Ware. I would argue that traffic will be impacted, particularly at high volume times with special events in Lexington, as I just stated. At full capacity, with any of these events, coming out of our neighborhood would be quite problematic. Every day average run-of-the-mill traffic, I could understand their position for maybe a low volume. I'm not comparing this to professional building, which is currently back there that runs 8 to 5. It's quiet in the evenings, quiet on the weekends, there's no traffic. That is the difference, that weekends will be impacted and special events will be impacted if they are at high capacity for these events. Secondly, I would like a determination made regarding a barrier between our property to avoid lights and noise. This has not really been addressed. It was merely mentioned at one of our meetings with Mr. Stitt and Mr. Ladenberger. I don't think there's anything concrete to say. at six foot, I'm at the bottom of the hill. This property gently rises to the top of beyond. I don't know exactly what the grade is, but it rises. Six foot's not going to do anything for me. And I don't know where they're going to put a fence because my property levels out, then it rains over two 48-inch concrete pipes, which there is no room between that and the proposed track. So I'm not sure how they're going to do this, but a six-foot slapboard fence is not acceptable to us. Thank you. Mr. Laneburg, would you be able to provide any further clarification as to the buffering or the fence that's intended? I'm sorry. Would you be able to provide any further clarification as to the fence, location of the fence? I can remember in subdivision there was some discussion that the fence might, and Ms. Ware was concerned how you would install a fence on top of those drainage tiles and so forth. Do you have any further information to add on location of the fence, the solid aspect of the fence? Well, it's going to be a solid wooden fence. We've recommended that the same fence that Trader Joe's built be continued through our development for continuity. And we actually like the looks of that fence. It appears the same on both sides of the property, and it provides a fairly dense screen. In the back, along Mrs. Ware's property, if there's a grave problem that a six-foot fence would not solve, it's possible that we could do an eight-foot fence instead. I think we would leave that as an option if we get into construction. if it doesn't appear that a six-foot fish would be adequate. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. One more question, Ms. Ware? Yes, sir. Presently, my home is right here. all that is required for this entire development are 509 parking spaces all that's required there are nine parking spaces here as you can see the walking track kind of curves slightly and then dips back towards our property we've proposed and I sent this proposal to Mr. Cohen at his request that these nine parking spaces since they have 18 more than they need, be removed. That the walking track be straightened away from our property line with an adequate berm or an adequate fence in place of these nine parking lots. We think that is an acceptable resolution. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Weyer. Thank you. At this point, any further questions from the Commission for anyone? Chris, do you have anything to add? No. I'm going to close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among the Commission members, and we'll entertain a motion when you see fit. Yes, Ms. Phillips. I think we're putting the cart before the horse. We have through the 3rd of December to take action on this plan. We're talking about buffering. We're talking about the height of fences. We're talking about numbers of parking spaces, and these are issues that need to be addressed by the Board of Adjustment with the application for conditional use. And I would like for us to continue this hearing until we have action from the Board of Adjustment. Thank you. Other discussion? I don't think that was motioned just yet. I agree. You agree? Okay. Other discussion from anyone? Yes, sir. I wouldn't be in favor of that. Surprised. What would the Board of Adjustment have to look at if we don't approve this plan? I mean, would they? They would deal with parking spaces and building height. I know, but if they don't have a plan, an approved plan to look at, how can they make an action? They can see. They don't have to preserve. Well, but it wouldn't be approved. I mean, we've always done it this way. We've always approved these development plans and then we're not approved them, whatever we choose to do. Well, we haven't had neighbors come down to talk to them. But we send them to the Board of Adjustment, and they deal with it. I mean, if they don't have a plan to critique an approved plan, I mean, it looks like you're wasting their time. But there's a site plan that will need to be presented, and they can present this as a site plan. And I'm uncomfortable with our locking things in and potentially using our approval of a development plan as leverage for approval of a conditional use permit. And so I would move. We're done with discussion. I would like to move that we continue this hearing until our continued decision on this until our meeting on November 8th. Did you verify the date? That's when we had it. November 8th is your meeting in November to deal with development and subdivision plans. Thank you. A motion has been made to continue this until our November 8th meeting. Do I have a second? And second, let's vote on it and we can have a discussion. You've got some discussion? Question? Yes. In regards to the motion? I do. Okay. I guess what happens if this goes through and they go to the Board of Adjustment and they approve it and then it changes around and all those things and then it comes back to us and we don't approve it, then they have no remedy to go back to the Board of Adjustment to get the conditional use. We don't know that's not going to happen. We don't know that's not going to happen. I think a continuance is viable. I think Mr. Salee mentioned the fact that this was on the agenda for the Board of Adjustments last month, and it did get postponed for whatever reason, so it could have been taken care of at that time, and then we would have been seeing a development plan after the fact. I'm sure if we had not seen, if the conditional approval had not been granted, we would not have been seeing a development plan at this point. I would presume I'm correct. Legal? Yes? Okay. So, at this point, we do have a motion for continuance of Plan 2012-83 Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Incorporated, Lot 3 amended, and we do have a second. I'll ask for a vote at this time. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes for continuance until November 8th. I would remind everybody that it is a continuance. At that point in time, we would be asking just for new information at that time. We will not be reiterating anything that is not necessary. I'll put it that way. Okay? Thank you. And I'm believing we've got one more. Is that right? Green Hills, it's on page 7, item L, DP 2006-69, Green Hills Unit 2. This is a re-approval. Thank you. up on the screen motion passes thank you next yes ma'am I'm gonna try and make this short and sweet for you guys thank you this is DP 2006-69 Greendale Hills unit 2 this is located to the out the Sandersville and Greendale Road area that we just were in. It will be east of the Masterson Station and northwest of what's the proposed Citation Boulevard. This plan was approved in November of 2006, then again in December of 2007. In April of 2008, it was signed. They did not complete their requirements for the preliminary subdivision by creating final record plans. Now they're back to ask for re-approval on this plan. We have 11 conditions to the plan, and with that, they ask for re-approval. I will make one note on denote that the connection of Lucille Drive will be the first phase of the development on either end of Lucille Drive on this plan. I was just going to let you know that lots have been recorded up into this point on both sides, So then that way, this is the connector for Lucille Draft. Thank you. Applicant? We're in agreement. Thank you. Your name? Rory. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Any questions from the commission members? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I'll close it. And Ms. Blanton. Move for re-approval of DP 2006-69, Greendale Hills Unit 2, with the 11 conditions urgently approved. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the re-approval of DP 2006-69. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you. I believe that's all the agenda items. Commission-wise, Barb, if you would, I want to give you an update on one commission member, if possible. We do have a picture, I think. There you go. If he can lighten it up, maybe. If you can't see, that is a picture of Frank Penn with a tiger. And as I see, he's got him by the tail, I guess. I did send a reply with a text that we were more concerned what the tiger might do to Frank as opposed to the other way around. But he is, I guess, very soon on his way back as he plans to be back if the tiger didn't get him. late tomorrow night. So with that, I was going to try and introduce Will's daughter, but I think she vacated on us. So with that, motion to adjourn. And second. Any opposed? Work session, yes, is scheduled for next week. My love is overflowing With love and cover Girl, I know you're down The love will lift you up My love Are you ready for my love, my love?