I wanna tell you I love you when I wanna be with you night and night Ooh, baby, I love you when I'm not a good one Get my ass If you wanna get with me Better make it fast Now don't go wasting My precious time Get your act together We could be just fine I'll tell you what I want What I really, really want Tell me what you want What you really, really want I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna I wanna really, really, really want As big as it's fine If you wanna be my lover You gotta get with my friends Make it last forever Friendship never ends If you wanna be my lover You have got to give Taking is too easy But that's the way it is What you think about that? Now you know how I feel Say you can handle my love Are you for real? I won't be hasty I'll give you a try If you really bug me Then I'll say goodbye Yo, I won't tell you what I want, what I really, really want Don't tell me what you want, what you really, really want I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna really, really, really want to say what they call If you wanna be my lover Thank you. 2013 to order. Appreciate everyone being here. We do have minutes for approval. that May 9th that were emailed to commission members have not heard of any changes or amendments. If so, please let us know. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the minutes. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the minutes May 9th, 2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nick Nicholson. I'm here on behalf of item number 3A on your all's agenda. It's on page 3. It is ZDP 2012-76, the Deerfield Shopping Center. The applicant is narrowing in on the final design for this preliminary plan, And we had promised the neighbors that we would meet with them prior to actually presenting it to you all. And so we would request a one-month postponement to the July, I believe, the 11th meeting. And also the subdivision committee is also recommending postponement. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement for ZDP 2012-76. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of ZDP 2012-76 until July 11th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, my name is Sarah Tuttle, the Strand Engineer. On page three, right below the one that you just postponed, DP 2013-6 SAMS property amendment, we request a two-week postponement on that. I'm expecting this plan will possibly be withdrawn, but I need, we lost power this morning. I couldn't find my client, and I need a little reprieve. Okay. That would be until June the 27th? Yes. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone DP 2013-6 until June 27th. Until June 27th. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for postponement of DP 2013-6 until June 27th. Please vote. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll ask Mr. Salee to walk us through the Kassin agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are a half dozen items that qualify for consideration at this time for approval of your consent agenda. The first is a preliminary subdivision plan that your staff has recommended reapproval for. It is the very first plan on your agenda on page 1, item A, Plan 2012-14P, Hamburg Place Community, Phase 2. again an amended preliminary subdivision plan for property involving a portion of 2350 Winchester Road. There are two final subdivision plans on the consent agenda that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 2, item B, plan 2013-53F, 300 West Vine LLC property involving property located at 307-315, 315, 317 through 331, and 343 South Broadway. The next item on your consent agenda is on page 3, item D. There is a typo on your consent agenda. Page 3, item D, Plan 2013-56F, the fairways of Andover. This involves property at 3435 McFarland Lane. In addition, there are three final development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 4, item D, of your meeting agenda, DP 2013-50, PB Devereaux subdivision, also known as the Lynn Grove edition, involving property at 1908 and 19, pardon me, wrong address, located 99-103 and 109-119 Burley Avenue. On page 6, item H of your meeting agenda, this plan is also on the consent agenda, DP2013-54, Manowar Development, Unit 2A, Lots A20 and A21, involving property in 1908 and 1916 Bryant Road. The final item on your consent agenda is at page 6, item J of your meeting agenda, DP2013-56, an amended final development plan for the Blackford property, Phase 1, Unit 5, involving property at 3105 Blackford Parkway. In considering this last plan, I would inform the Commission that we have received the required affidavit and evidence of the signposting involving this property. Also, you have been supplied a memo dated June 11th from Mr. Martin regarding the EAMP compliance for this plan for the necessary finding as such. With that, Mr. Chairman, unless a member of the Planning Commission, an applicant, or a member of the audience would ask to have one of these items removed from your consent agenda to allow further discussion, the Commission could consider approval of these six items at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salady. Anyone in the audience wish to hear any one of these items that were presented? Any commission member wish to pull and have any one of these items heard? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda. Yes, sir. Ms. Plumlee, question? No, I just moved approval of consent agenda. Okay. So we do have a motion. sorry mr wilson that's all right uh we do have a motion and second for approval of the consent agenda as read uh please vote when he comes up on the screen motion passes thank you according to our agenda our first item is a final subdivision plan plan 2013-52f It's on page 2 under item 2A. And I think since we do have two development plans with that as well, we'll kind of hear all three of these together, correct? Mr. Chairman, staff, would you like to hear all three together at the time of the final development plans on your agenda? Because you do have people that are on the agenda prior to that. We can do that if it's okay with the commission. We can do that and remove a couple of these other items first. What we would do then, we would move to the bottom of page two, item 2C, plan 2013-54L, Middleburg Farm. You do have a revision, which is on a light brown sheet in front of you. That has 10 conditions on them. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is Plan 2013-54F, a final record plat for subdivision of an AR lot titled Middleburg Farm. Middleburg Farm. It is located at the intersection of Faulkner Avenue and Russell Cave Road. This plan had required the posting of a sign and an affidavit of such. The purpose of this plan is to subdivide one 131.2-acre lot into two 65.6-acre lots, a 50-50-lot split. It is important to note that that is precisely and only what this plat represents. No further development could take place on the property unless there was a zone change, and then a followed-by preliminary development plan and then a final development plan. Originally, the subdivision committee had recommended postponement. There were questions about compliance with Article 3-7 of the zoning ordinance, which pertains to cemetery protection and access. You may note this small family cemetery located on the southern end of this lot. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a revised plan that has addressed a number of the issues that we've previously identified. And as a result of this revision, we can now offer a revised recommendation of approval to this commission. This recommendation of approval is subject to the usual sign-off conditions, urban county engineer, traffic engineer, building inspection, addressing office, department of environmental quality, the addition of utility and street light easements as required, the correction of a cross-section cut through for Russell Cave Road, section CC. There is a rural road cross-section as well as a neighborhood road cross-section. we ask that they verify the configuration of the flood plain on the east side of track 2 there seems to be a slight difference in what the GIS information indicates versus what is shown on the plan this flood plain is indicated as being slightly shifted this way so we ask that they investigate and verify that then denote compliance with article 3-7 of the zoning ordinance by denoting that the required report on the cemetery shall be submitted at the time of a final development plan. And finally, denote location of a 10-foot access easement to the family cemetery per Article 3-7 of the zoning ordinance. At this time, we'll turn it over to you for questions and comments. Any questions? No. Thank you. Yeah, I've got one. I'm sorry, Frank, yes. David, can you show me where that access easement comes in for the cemetery? It is not yet there, sir. So that will come in on the settlement plot? We ask for that to be denoted on this plot. Can you show me the access to both pieces of subdivided property? The current access, I believe there is an easement. There is access here at the front toward the entire lot, and then it splits off back here to what will be track one. But the current access is on what is denoted here as track two. Is that a shared access that splits the farm? At this time, it is, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Cayley, anything to add? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with the EA Partners. There is another access to the farm. It's off Faulkner Avenue. It's right as you leave the subdivision. There's a gate there. So each lot has existing its own street frontage or a street access point. And I'd like to clarify that condition 7, that Russell Cave Road should be section AA. A, that's the rural section. Section CC is the one that shows sidewalks. I don't believe sidewalks on both sides of Russell Cave is planned. Other than that, I'm in agreement with the conditions. Okay. Thank you. What about the 10-foot access? Do you have any idea? As soon as I can talk to the owner. Right now, the cemetery is in the middle of a field. There's no paddock lines. There's nothing I can choose, so it will be whatever he wants to do. Okay. Mr. Penn? Where you've got access off Faulkner, the access to the other track comes in off Russell Cave. Is that a shared access? I don't know if he will want to keep the Russell Cave to access both lots or not. But we'll know that by the time the development plan comes in. Well, it'll have to be decided on the final record plan when that comes in. And when I can talk to the owner and find out how he wants to access the cemetery, we'll find out if he wants the caves to touch both. That's fine. Thank you. I don't know if it's a question for Mr. Kaley or staff, but I'm presuming before this plan is recorded, these questions will be resolved. Am I correct? Yeah. Otherwise, I don't get to record it. Before it's recorded. There you go. Okay. Any other questions? Ms. Beatty? Mr. Chair, I'm following up with your comment. From subdivision, I can't see where we've changed that significantly to move from postponement to approval. So I just need some clarification. And I think the question's centered around the access and the cemetery. So are you saying that there's something else that has occurred there? that changed the approval? And I also note the flood elevation piece has been resolved. Okay. Yes, ma'am. There were conditions that were met, originally condition 9, condition 10, you see on your revised conditions. And we had a discussion with the applicant regarding the compliance with Article 3-7, where we came to an agreement that the access easement would be added and then full compliance would be achieved at such time as the final development plan, which is reflected in Condition 9. So we felt that at this point we had arrived at a point where we could recommend approval. Okay. And that will be confirmed at the time that we see the final development plan. I wasn't clear that Roy was saying he needs to make a decision. Yes. Right now we're just doing a plat to get the ag land into two lots. If they come back with a development plan, that's when all the issues with the family cemeteries kick in. There's requirements for fencing, landscaping, maintenance. There's a whole litany and a full report you have to turn in when you want to develop. We're just doing a simple split of 130 acres into two lots. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Penn? Corey, does any of that frontage on Russell Kaye show floodplain? Soils only. The blue line they've highlighted here is the FEMA, Zone A. and then the rest of this is just lines for alluvial soil areas and some non-buildable areas. So it doesn't show any flood plain along Russell Cave? No, not a FEMA flood plain. Okay. Other questions? Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? Seeing none, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Any other questions? If not, I'll close this part of hearing and open it up for any discussion among the Commission members and or a motion. Mr. Wilson. No discussion, but I was ready to make a motion. If you or my colleagues are ready. I think we're ready. Mr. Chairman, I move approval for Plan 2013-54F, Middleburg Farm, in compliance with the recommendations presented by staff. That will be done. Okay. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? We do have a second. Ms. Mundy, if there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. With the section changing, like the wrong one. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to amend the motion? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I amend the motion to include AA. Okay. Motion has been amended to include the AA section for Russell Cave, correct? Yes. And didn't you say CC for Faulkner, or is that already shown? No. Okay. Okay. For AA to be amended for Russell Cave Road. Staff's in agreement with that? We already agree. That's a question, yes. Okay. Okay. So we do have a motion to amend and second. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. What I'd like to do, if possible, would be to go to... Let me see what they're putting up here. Kingston Hall? Okay. We'll go to Kingston Hall, which is on page 4. Item C, it's DP 2013-36, Kingston Hall Unit 2, East Bridge for the Land and Development Company amended. You do have revisions for you on a green sheet. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I would like to recuse myself from this particular discussion. I serve as the chairman of the board of the palliative health care, which is a subsidiary of hospice. So in consultation with our chair and consultation with our legal, I will depart the scene for this particular portion of the meeting. Okay. Thank you. Please. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this item is on page four of your agenda, Item C, DP 2013-36, Kingston Hall, Unit 2, also known as East Bridgeford Land and Development Company. It is an amended plan. We have distributed to you a green sheet that does have revised conditions on this plan. The property in question is located out on Newtown Pike. It is north of the interstate, and the development that is related to the interstate on Stanton Way has been in that area for some time. Here is Providence Parkway. This section of Providence Parkway has been built and dedicated in this location. You've seen various development plans and recommendations in this area for this development. here you've the most latest plan you saw that you approved was in this location for development on these properties and this is mary fay place this extension of this local street off of providence has been dedicated but not built as of this time and it butts into this adjoining property the property in question before you you can see here this is roughly a 16 acre tract the proposal is a medical clinic with associated parking they are showing the extension of Mary Fay Place to eventually be built into their property at this location here is an access road this coincides with an existing access in the old road to the residence that is in this location Although what you see before you on this development plan shows a medical facility, offices. I know the PC, the Planning Commission, is aware that a text amendment has been filed to amend the ED zone to allow a hospice to be developed here. But that's not what this plan actually represents. represents when the if and when that text amendment goes through, we would anticipate some changes to this plan. For one thing, the parking requirement will change. The parking that's shown here is 267 spaces, as I said, along with 45,000 square feet of buildable area with an auxiliary building at this location. There is a waiver request as well that is associated with this. You should have that at your place. It should be distributed. And an EAMP compliance report also is associated with this development, as it is zoned ED, and this is an expansion area. This is a revised plan, and the plan was actually that you see before you as the second revision. Now, staff did not revise conditions, nor did we revise the waiver or EAMP report because we don't believe this revision made that necessary. You can see on your revised conditions that we do have standard sign-offs, typical for a development plan. The revision, both the previous and this one, do address a considerable number of cleanup conditions. We have several items that do remain. Revise, delete, and correct, notes 9 through 13. That's item 10. That's very, very much just a cleanup condition. They need to clarify their square footage and parking floor area. This is just a slight, very slight number discrepancy in their site statistics. They'll need to document their ability to drain the stormwater to the off-site detention basin. and that is just merely a condition to know that they can, in fact, utilize off-site detention that does exist in this location. This little feature here is a water quality feature. It's not actually proposed to be a volume feature or a detention. There is detention located in this area. They are proposing, as I stated, to utilize this access point. That will have to be to the approval of the State Department of Transportation. There's been discussion about utilizing that access point, and if so, it should have a flare as well constructed with it to help allow traffic to move off out of the lane and turn into the property. It's a taper. It's not a full-fledged turn lane, but we believe that would be one aspect of utilizing this access point. And that actually will – let me add one other thing. Pardon me. We have a condition that says addition of cul-de-sac to be included on the development plan, and that relates to your waiver. And your waiver request that you have, again, before you on white paper, is a request to not terminate this extension of Mary Fay Place as a full cul-de-sac per the subdivision regulations. You can see, again, it terminates at this point. They're proposing a transition into private property. The staff, as you can see in the report for the waiver, we are actually recommending disapproval of this. We believe that it is really too early in the process and development of this property to make such a determination, number one. Number two, staff is also concerned about the geometrics. Now, this revision is an improvement over the previous one where they were just the street was coming right into some parking area and parking spaces. So they have attempted to improve these geometrics. We're not confident that that's enough improvement. In addition, and I have a, if you'll place the exhibit, please. You can see these are alternative cul-de-sac designs. And staff is of the opinion that this plan could be modified to show a partial cul-de-sac here. and when this property develops, the rest of the cul-de-sac could be constructed. And so in essence, the development of these two properties could share the cost of building a cul-de-sac and meeting the subdivision regulations. So that's really the basis for our recommendation of disapproval of the waiver at this point. There is an EAMP compliance report as well. Staff has reviewed the plan. The developer is proposing certain community development style amenities. There's a large required setback in open space, as you can see all in this area. That's an EAMP requirement. They have a lot of green space shown. We believe the orientation is such. It's somewhat isolated from any other development. is consistent with some of the community design requirements in the AMP. There are two infrastructure elements that are extremely important that affect this entire area, one of which is a regional pump station. That will have to be built by the urban county government, not by the applicant. That is a requirement that there are exaction fees that are paid into a fund to help build that feature, among others. You may recall that once upon a time, a plan showed it in this location. It's been determined that that's not the best location for that plant, although I don't think a final site has been selected at this time. It will be somewhat further downstream in the watershed, as staff's understanding. The applicant is proposing a temporary pump station in this location here. that will serve the property should the regional pump station not be necessary. This is consistent with past practice specifically on approval of these properties. They are utilizing a sewer line that runs to a pump station that exists down near the Arby's and McDonald's location. Again, the pump stations in the area, there's quite a few of them in this area of our community, they will all go away once this regional pump station is constructed. And then the other EAMP feature is, of course, Providence Parkway. It's identified in the EAMP. It's an exactable feature. It is required to be built, and you can see, obviously, that it's not necessary for them to build any portion of the parkway. Now, again, back to this, this is a part of the local street system, and the local street system is an important element to the AMP, which Providence Place Parkway, of course, supports. The overall concept being that this entire development, which runs from Newtown all the way over to Russell Cave, is an entire development. Providence Parkway will go completely across to Russell Cave, and again, local street systems would be built to support that element. We do have a discussion item that remains on your plan, and that is whether or not this access point should remain permanent or be temporary. and as these plans developed over time in this area, this was identified and it came through and it came through to this property and it was identified to be temporary until such time as properties developed and a local system was constructed again along with Providence Place Parkway. We still think that that is a worthy item to discuss, whether or not it should be permanent or temporary. Staff has had considerable discussions with traffic and some others. They had submitted the previous plan. They had moved this to this location, and it crowded the existing access point at Dr. Poole's property, which is in through here. with this spacing from here at Providence Parkway to Dr. Poole's is approximately 500 feet, give or take a few feet. And that meets the minimum spacing standards for Newtown Pike as a collector street. By utilizing this space, this access point that exists, it's approximately 360, maybe 370 feet from Dr. Poole. So it doesn't quite meet the minimum, but it's close. So that gives us a level of comfort with the hospice proposed use. Now, I think staff would certainly be concerned if this was an actual full-blown medical office facility or in a more intense use, would be very concerned about utilizing this access at all. So again, we do think it's a worthy discussion item about whether or not there should be a timing mechanism associated with this access point. With that, I will state that staff is recommending approval of the plan at this time. We've recommended disapproval of the waiver request. and your EAMP report, which has been distributed to you. Staff has found that this plan is in substantial compliance with the EAMP. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Pym, Mr. Martin, if my memory serves me correctly, that access point was supposed to serve a 10-acre lot. Yes, sir. Is that 10-acre lot still there? There was a plat that has been approved for that property as 10 acres, but the property you see before you is 16. I understand that, but it's behind the 10-acre tract, right? There is a 10-acre tract that was created and approved for this property. So how do you deal with the 10-acre tract if you're creating access to the 16-acre tract for intensive use? The 10-acre tract was intended to serve a single-family residential use. Exactly right. And that's what, when we did that whole plan, that access was supposed to be for that 10-acre tract. And the other connection was supposed to be back there in the back where you pointed where the temporary sewer line, or their pump station should be. So now you're asking us to change that and not build that road until needed. So we're going from a 10-acre track with one home to a 265 parking spaces. The plan that you see before you, yes, sir, does show that development and does show that parking. Again, as I stated, staff understands that there's a text amendment and that this plan will be amended and modified once that text amendment is approved. But the text amendment is just to allow the use. Yes, sir, but with lower parking required. Because of ED. I understand all that. My concern is the 10-acre track. It's still platted. It's still there. It has not been recorded. It was approved. I don't believe it was recorded. Okay, well, we don't need to get into that argument. But I wanted to clear it in my own mind what we were dealing with here, because that is not the plan that we developed there to start with. You are correct in that from the beginning it was anticipated that that access would not remain once there was full development of these properties. And it was anticipated that there would be more intense development of these properties. Yes, sir. But the more intense development would come out on Providence. It would, yes, sir. Again, in the EAMP, as we stated, and as you can see with Mary Fay Place, the intent of the local streets is to bring that development to Providence Parkway. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Ms. Plumlee? Yeah, I have two questions, Tom. This is at the very edge of the urban service area, right? Yes, ma'am. So what will be north of this immediately? Oh, okay. Well, it is at the urban service boundary. Eaton Farms is located here. It is an agricultural use and will remain so. Just beyond that is Fasig-Tipton. There is a buffer required because of the urban service boundary and the AUs that they are meeting and they are providing as well. So there is no plans beyond this other than AR, of course. This is the edge. Yes, ma'am. And the second question is about the detention basin. You said something about the developer going to arrange something? We would just like for them to basically document their ability to utilize this off-site detention, which is controlled by a separate entity, a developer, which is in this location. It's actually someone else's property? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any questions? Tom, let me clarify a couple of things. One, first and foremost, I guess, when you were talking about the proposed cul-de-sacs, you're asking staff's recommendations for disapproval of the waiver for the way it's drawn now and submitted. And it sounded like to come back later with a proposed cul-de-sac or something, or do you want us to act on that and advise as far as a cul-de-sac at this time? I think one of the conditions of our approval would be show a cul-de-sac, but I think we could be comfortable with showing a partial design of the cul-de-sac, which would actually eventually be built in conjunction with this property. Okay. Second, if my memory serves me correct, this piece of property was an L-shape that turned and came down to where the retention basin was? At one time it came down. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm curious, and this is the first time I noticed it, where the proposed development is to the east, you've got open space there, unutilized space. Is there a reason for that? Well, at one time, as I stated, it was anticipated that approximately two acres up in here would be the location of the regional pump station. But subsequently, it is our understanding that our Division of Water Quality does not think that's really the most appropriate location. So it is actually now being shown closer to its original location in the EAMP. Okay. The surrounding property, I believe, is to the north and also to the east. Am I correct? Yes. So, you know, that is the urban service boundary as well. And where I'm headed to, that small rectangular shape seems like unutilized land at this point in time. Okay. Okay. Yes, sir. And I'm sure the applicant may be able to speak to this. Okay. In a brief discussion that we had with them, they expressed an interest in possibly someday acquiring and utilizing this space in conjunction with the hospice. But they could elaborate on that. And just to clarify, when you were speaking a moment ago, you were speaking as far as this development going on over to Russell Cave. And to me, it was almost like, yeah, it was directly to the east of this, but that's not correct. No, no, I mean, it drops down. It extends over this way, and this doesn't show it. And, of course, there's a big picture plan. Where that text is is not. Right. This is not part of it. It's outside of Irmstrom. It spins down this way and it extends all the way over to Russell County Road. Just wanted to clarify that. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. Yeah, Mr. Martin, and this, it appears that there has been a lot of planning and thought that has gone into this prior to us looking at this plan and prior to me being on the commission. So with the street system that you were talking about going from Newtown to Russell Cave, as well as the pump station, is there a timeline when we know that that will occur, as well as the street system that will go from Providence Place, that will actually connect to the development of interest now? Is there a timeline? Do we know exactly where that pump station will be at some point when we say that that's probably not the best location? Where will it be? And you're saying that they may put a temporary pump station in. is that all going to be able to sort of blend together with this whole area of development? I guess it sounds as if there's a great deal of planning that had already gone into what that area is going to look like. And now we're changing that, which is okay. I know we need to be flexible. But I'm just in question, well, how will it all fit back together nicely? Yes, ma'am. Well, first of all, let me address Providence Parkway. There is nothing changed with the location of Providence Parkway other than the plan that you see, and that portion shifted very slightly on a previous plan. But it is designed to go all the way over to Russell Cave Road. It shall be built as needed as that property develops, which is normal practice, and which has been done with Polo Club Boulevard and Hayes Boulevard and those same type of collector roads identified in the expansion area. The location of the sewer system is being reviewed. It is on a quicker timetable. I cannot speak to an exact one, but due to our compliance needs with the EPA and those needs, the construction of these systems are very much on the table and being reviewed, and timetables and I believe financing and that sort of thing is being looked at very aggressively. I think it would be fair to say that this particular system is a few years, several years, three, four, maybe five down the road as they address the different priorities in order to meet the sewer requirements and water quality requirements that the city is facing through the consent decree. Mr. Penn? Tom, will there be exaction credits for that temporary pump station? I don't believe so, no, sir. It's not an identified element. You get credits only for building something that's identified as required under the EAM. So that property would still pay their exaction fees toward the final pump station? Yes, sir. They will have to pay exaction fees. Mr. Berkeley. Tom, can you go back through the piece again about this cul-de-sac? I am not following this. Why we would want a half cul-de-sac built now? Well, we don't want one built, actually. We're recommending disapproval of the waiver request, and we think the plan needs to reflect a cul-de-sac, although we do think that showing a cul-de-sac that was on this property and also constructed on the adjoining property is probably a more fair way of getting that piece of public infrastructure developed because we think it's going to serve both pieces of property. And again, a cul-de-sac is a requirement of the subregs, which is one reason they've requested a waiver at this time. It's probably best to say we just think the waiver is premature at this time. Mr. Martin, just to follow up with Ms. Beatty real quick, as far as the construction of Providence Place Parkway, you've got it built or drawn in and shaded to a certain area. That extends considerably. It's not going over to Russell Cave, but it would kind of fall off the page, wouldn't it? There's a lot line that runs right down through here and runs on down this way. Providence Parkway is basically built and dedicated to that lot line. I thought it extended past that even. And it curves on down slightly and it heads on over to Russell Cave Road. Okay. Ms. Beatty? I just wanted to address number 16 again and discuss whether it should be temporary or permanent. What was the staff's recommendation on that? We are not concerned at this point with that access point based on the applicant's statements that this is to be a hospice. We are concerned, should there be future more intensive development, that this access remain, at least without not having review and evaluation. We are aware that sometimes it's difficult once one's been granted to deal with it in the future. But we do have other examples, even on Newtown Pike, where we have an access point associated with the mental health facility by Coldstream that is to go away at such time they achieve permanent access through Coldstream. That would be a very apt comparison to this situation. Ms. Mundy? Tom, could you explain to me when we're looking at the interconnector there between Providence Parkway and the proposed hospice unit, I guess I'm looking for a timeline there as to when that connector street will be done. Those things happen when those properties develop. And I think, as the Planning Commission is aware, we have, as a body, as an entity, as staff, we don't have much control over that. That happens when the people are ready to develop their property, which is driven primarily, as you know, by the economics of the situation. Okay. I think at this time I'll ask for the applicant to come on up and speak and see if he can clarify any more. I'm sure we may get back to you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Thank you. One of the joys of doing land use law is that I get to work occasionally with wonderful organizations, with wonderful people who have a very important mission for this community. And as you know, hospice provides care to people who have a terminal illness or condition and provides assistance to their families as well. And as you all probably know, like I have, I've had experience with close loved ones who have gone through hospice, and when everything else in your life seems to be falling apart, they come in and they give you comfort. They give you medication, medical treatment as you need it, and they give you some sense of stability in your life. So I'm very pleased to be here representing them today. As you all know, I've represented Dennis Anderson in the past on properties in this area, but I need to clarify today I'm here representing Hospice of the Bluegrass, who has a contract to purchase this property from Dennis Anderson. Dennis Anderson is making a partial donation as part of this as well. With me today is Gretchen Brown, who is the chief executive officer of Hospice. Woodford Webb is the chairman of the board of Hospice back on the next road, and I want to clarify that he's here as chairman of the Board of Hospice. Webb Companies is not involved in this project whatsoever, but Woodford is chairman of the Board of Hospice. We have a number of people on the board who know this is very important to the board who came here to express their support today. Mark Nabitz is here. Eric Frankel. D.D. Byrne. Susan Weyer is here as well. Matt Carter from Vision Engineering is our designer. He's here in the back. Chaz Height is a planner who assists me as well today. I had three preliminary items I had to enter into the record. I had a bunch of preliminary stuff because of all the notifications we have to do on this one. I entered in, we've delayed this twice, so I've entered in three affidavits about posting the sign. We updated it every time. We've got pictures of those, so all those are in the record. Two weeks ago, I discovered the night before the hearing that on an old development plan, we had three other people who had to get individual notice of any development plan. That's why we had to postpone, because we didn't know about that. So I've got copies of letters we sent to Greg Goodman of Mount Brilliant Farm on behalf of the North Fayette Neighborhood Group. Sent a letter to Jack Birch on Russell Cave, Harry Scott, Jr. on Russell Cave. And I actually talked to all three of those people in person, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Birch, and Mr. Scott. They all got their notification, and nobody had an objection to what we're doing out here. Also, the ordinance requires that we notify a number of administrators, commissioners in the urban county government when we do a development plan out in the expansion area. So we got letters in there to the chief administrative officer, commissioner of finance, Commissioner of Environmental Quality and Public Works, Commissioner of General Services, and Commissioner of Planning. So they all got a copy of our development plan and our compliance statement and our infrastructure statement. None of them have expressed any reservations or issues with those as well. The sign has been out there and posted for eight weeks now, notifying people of our hearing. and we also, I've entered into the record a copy of a written agreement we just signed this afternoon with Mr. Darby Turner, who's here representing Eaton Farm, who is right next door to us, reaffirming an agreement we made about the landscaping along this property that Dennis Anderson had agreed to five years ago. We reaffirmed that we'd do the 50-foot landscape buffer area, so that's in the record as well. So I just needed to mention that I got all those things in the record. Hospice now operates in a number of over 30 counties in central and eastern Kentucky. And as you're, I'm sure, familiar with what they do, for some time hospice has been considering the possibility of whether they could provide services in a freestanding inpatient center. As you all probably know, hospice provides services many ways in Lexington and central Kentucky. Part of it is in-home treatment. Part of it is inpatient treatment. They have a unit at a hospital right now where some patients stay for longer periods of time. They've been considering whether that would be better provided in a freestanding facility at some point in the future, and they've been investigating that carefully. A year or so ago, they opened a new freestanding facility in Hazard, Kentucky. What they found there has been overwhelmingly positive. What they found from families and patients is that they are very happy to have a facility devoted to them. Similarly with the staff, the staff is happy because they feel that they can focus their mission better in a facility that is a freestanding, hospice-only facility. that explains a little bit I'll use that to explain a little bit why we want to go out here this is a piece of land that is probably not well suited for some of the manufacturing type uses which are allowed in ED, ED is mainly manufacturing health care anymore you can manufacture plastic, metal, asbestos battery manufacturing that sort of thing we also are allowed to do a medical campus of 50 acres Now, hospice could probably go on a 50-acre medical campus as an allowed use, but we want to do this as freestanding. ED allows a medical clinic in the ED zone right now. So we have shown on this development plan this facility being a medical clinic. Now, you may say, well, why are we doing that? And the reason for this is because under the CAP program, for the sanitary sewers, the capacity assurance program, we have a deadline of July 3rd under which we have to have our sanitary sewer capacity reserved, so to speak, or get on our permanent list of order that we can get that. So we had to file a development plan showing our building up here of sufficient square footage, which would reserve, so to speak, our sanitary sewer capacity. That's why we're here today. Normally, we would have filed our text amendment first. Our text amendment is scheduled to be heard by you in two weeks, which allows hospice as an allowed use in the ED zone, but because of this one-time sort of quirk in the law, we need to come before you now so we can get our plans certified by July 3rd to get on our permanent list for sanitary sewer capacity. Now, what that means is that if you approve the text amendment that allows hospices to be a principal use in the ED zone, we're going to come back to you with an amendment to our development plan. And what that's going to do, that's going to eliminate at least half the parking we have here because the parking for a medical clinic is based upon one space per 200. It's based upon having 15 doctors seeing four patients an hour, eight hours a day, a lot of in-and-out traffic and that sort of thing. Hospice has a lower parking requirement. The text amendment we've filed reduces that considerably, and I think the staff has proposed a higher standard, but even under the higher standard, we're still only going to be having about half as much parking as we're showing you there. So if you approve the text amendment, we will be coming back to you with an amended development plan here in a few weeks or a couple months, reducing that parking and identifying this as a hospice facility. If you don't approve the text amendment in two weeks, no building permit will ever be pulled for this project. That will be the end of it if you don't approve our text amendment. So hopefully you will approve it, and we will come back to you with an amended development plan. But since this is a development plan, we have to deal with these other issues, too, not only sanitary sewer but stormwater and buffering and access. So I need to discuss those issues with you. But first I just wanted to mention why this lot is so appropriate for a hospice-type use. Hospice is a low-intensity use. We'll have up to 40 beds here, overnight care. we have a number of buffering issues on this property which may make it less attractive for a manufacturing facility on the north we have a 50 foot buffer requirement which a buffer is required under the expansionary master plan but that encourages us to work things out with neighbors we've worked out an agreeable buffer plan with Eaton Farm which will mean we'll be putting in a second fence and three different types of rows of different types of species of trees, I think evergreen, deciduous, and flowering trees in this 50-foot buffer area. Along the south, along Dr. Poole's property, this is Dr. Poole right to the south of us, and there is no buffering required, but we have agreed with a tree preservation area all along Dr. Poole's south property line as well. on the west of the property. Half or more of our property is in the scenic resource area, which was placed up on this when the expansion area master plan came through in 1997, that area. That means in the western part, west of this line right here, we can have no buildings on that property, no buildings whatsoever. We even discussed whether we could have a picnic pagoda there, and even that is questionable, whether we can even have a picnic pagoda in the scenic resource area. You can have fences, you can have driveways and pavement, you just can't have buildings in the scenic resource area. So we have a 16-acre tract here of which 7.6 is taken up in scenic resource area and probably another two acres is taken up in the buffer, which we've agreed to. So less than half of our property is buildable area. Business people don't like to come in and buy twice as much acreage as they need, knowing they can't use the rest of it. That leaves us about seven acres here. It's a small tract for any manufacturing facility. So we feel our use, which is a low-intensity use, goes ideally on this property. Also, the fact that this is the urban service boundary line right here. We're adjacent to it, and we see that as an advantage. we feel that adds to the serene, comforting atmosphere that we're trying to create for the patients and families that come to the hospice. So to me, as I look at this, this property and this use were sort of made for each other out here. I do want to talk about these four issues I mentioned. I think I've mentioned buffering already, that we have buffering on the north side, under agreement with Mr. Turner's client, Eaton Farm. We have buffering on the south side adjacent to Dr. Poole's farm. We have the scenic resource area there. There's been some discussion about this area back here. That would still be owned by Dennis Anderson. Hospice might ask him to donate that to them at some point. If not, it would probably be preserved in part of the association dues or whatever that we have to do to pay for the detention basin right back in that area. So buffering. Now the second one is sanitary sewer availability. As Mr. Martin pointed out to you, all of Expansion Area 3, from Newtown Pike to Russell Cave Road, is planned to have one pump station located on it. That pump station will not only serve Expansion Area 3, but it's going to take out two or three major pump stations on the south side of I-75 and residential subdivisions. It's a major facility. That will be financed in part by the exaction fees that this property will pay. I found out doing this a lot of people don't know that property in the expansion area pays exaction fees or is responsible for exaction fees. This property, it amounts to about $40,000 per acre of exaction fees that this property is responsible for. Part of that will go to pay for the overall pump station. The city will pay for a lot of that itself because, like I said, we're paying for property on the other side of I-75 too. But that's a big project. Even the city people, Mr. Martin has said, Charlie Martin, the director of water quality, has said, that's too big for any private developer to do. It's going to have to be a city project funded partially by exaction fees. But until the time that that comes on, we'll have a temporary pump station serving our property. We have to go through all processes to assure that there's capacity in the lines to handle this. And Matt Carter and his colleagues at Vision Engineering did a study on that before we even filed this to make sure we'd have sewer capacity because that's critical for us to do. and he consulted with the Division of Water Quality, and they all concluded that, yes, there is capacity in these lines to handle the sewage from this facility. We can have a temporary pump station here. That will be entirely at the cost of hospice for the temporary pump station, and hospice will help pay for the big pump station, too. But until the big pump station is done, we would use the private pump station. It drains to a manhole, an existing manhole down here in Providence Place Parkway. From there it goes to the pump station, which is near the McDonald's, down at Stanton Way. So all administrators have agreed that we have capacity to do that. The third thing was the stormwater, and we have a stormwater detention basin right behind here, which has already been constructed by Mr. Anderson. Our stormwater will be going there. Staff had put a condition on you. I think it's new condition 13 that Matt Carter, our engineer, has to document the ability to drain water to the off-site detention basin. Our water quality feature is here. We'll be draining. It's only about 40 or 50 feet into that detention basin. We will be using the law to drain there, and the law is the law of gravity. We'll get us over to that detention basin. So Matt's confident he can demonstrate to Hillard Newman's satisfaction that we can drain to that detention basin. Now I'd like to talk to you about access, Newtown Pike, because this is an important issue for us. I know it's important for you all, too. We have right now on this property has one access point at Newtown Pike. This is the existing access point. There's a driveway coming into it. and that will be our access point until this property develops. Then we will also be required to go ahead and hook into this road, which is not yet constructed, but as Mr. Martin mentioned, this right-of-way has been dedicated. This is just shown as going through Dr. Poole's property up to us. It would be a public road. It's right now called Mary Fay Place. It's a local road coming up into our property. Now, the timing of that is totally under the control of Dr. Poole. If she does not, and she's here today, I'm sure you'll address that. If she choose not to develop for 15 years, that won't be connected for 15 years. If she chose to develop tomorrow and sell off the back part to build a factory on that property, I'm sure you all and the staff would require that road to be built next year. I don't think there's any schedule for her developing her property, but at some point in the future we may have access up here through Mary Fay Place at this point where we've shown. Now, the question is, when we get access on Mary Faye Place, may we keep also our access point on the Newtown Pike? That is critical to us because we think it's vital to the mission of hospice that we retain that entrance point. And in a minute, I'll ask Gretchen Brown and Woodford Webb to come and tell you why it's vital to the mission of hospice that we keep that permanent access point on the Newtown Pike. But I want to tell you what we did first in checking this out. First thing we did was we checked with the State Highway Department to see if we'd be able to utilize that existing farm entrance as an upgraded entrance. Anything beyond a single-family house is considered a commercial entrance in the Highway Department lexicon. So on my handouts that I gave you, page one is a letter from the Transportation Cabinet confirming that we have adequate site distance at this point on Newtown Pike and that we would be able to upgrade this entrance to serve our facility, of course conditional upon us submitting all the engineering plans and getting that all approved through the highway department. But we wanted to get that confirmation before we proceeded too far down the road on this plan. So they have confirmed that we have adequate site distance and could upgrade this entrance to what they call a commercial entrance, which would be able to serve us on the hospice. secondly we consulted with the division of traffic engineering mr. Jeff Neal and asked his opinion on that and he agreed that it would be okay for us to keep that as a permanent entrance he did however ask that we construct a taper on the right side to get cars off the traveling lane going north which we have agreed to do on that so he he signed off on that or he has agreed to that orally. Third, I talked to Captain Bowen and the Division of Fire on this because I wanted to know their position on whether we should have eventually two access points or one access point. Because as you know, this is a local street. If something is built on the back of Dr. Poole's property and has a fire incident, Mary Clay Place would be blocked. I know this, unfortunately, from experience with my own house catching fire, that when your house catches fire, the street in front of you gets blocked. And thank goodness by all the firefighting units that respond to your call. Captain Bowen said it would be the preference of the fire department that we have two access points. And that makes sense because we're going to have 40 non-ambulatory bedridden patients here who in the event of a fire or other kind of emergency would need to be evacuated from this facility. All health care facilities have to have plans to take care of eventualities like that. It's important that we retain the access point to Newtown Pike for that purpose, if for no other. But there are other reasons which Gretchen and Woodford will tell you about. I did a little history on this. I know there's been discussion about a 10-acre subdivision plant in the past, but I did find a previous development plant on this that was approved. There's been discussion about this in the past that was approved, in 2004, re-approved in 2005, certified in 2006 about the original plan for this property. Now, as you can see up here, here's Providence Place. Here's that driveway that was going to come through where the detention basin is, and I know there's been discussion of that in the past, and I don't want to get back into that, but my point is this. back in 2004, there was a plan approved that showed a permanent access way going from Providence Place up to Newtown Pike. Now, in the label up there, we have to label construction access. That was also going to be our construction entrance, but it also was a permanent entrance on there. We had a note on this plan that said that this would go away at the time we had access through the adjacent property up here. I'm not here to say that's the final plan on this property. Well, this was a 20-acre lot back then. I'm only using that to say at one point in the past there has been an approval of a permanent access point on Newtown Pike in the past. And the use on this property was not determined at that point. But now, if you can go back to the original, the one we had up there on the slide before, the development plan, we do have the use determined, which is going to be a hospice, and we think that the access point continues to be important. Now, probably we're talking about something that isn't going to even occur for 10 or more years. but we are inside the urban service area here. I can understand concerns, especially if we were asking for this outside the urban service area boundary. I can understand that. I can understand concerns about it here. But I think from our standpoint, not only what you're going to hear from Gretchen and Woodford, but from the safety standpoint and from the fact that we've looked into this, Seeing we have adequate sight distance right now, that we meet the criteria that Mr. Neal asked us to do that taper in there, that the fire department prefers two access points in and out, I hope you will vote to allow us to keep that as a permanent access point. Before I get Gretchen and Woodford up here, I just wanted to mention the waiver that I've asked for, And we are not showing a cul-de-sac where we join Dr. Poole's property with Mary Fay Place. We felt that it would be excess paving to do that and that if we would demark it with an elevated concrete lip or something like that to make a physical demarcation of where the public street ends and the private begins. However, I'm not going to come up here and fall on my sword fighting against a cul-de-sac today because we will be coming back to you and we will be, hopefully, knock on wood, if you approve our tax amendment in two weeks, we will be coming back for you with a plan so we can reduce our parking down, which will give us some additional room to deal with these circulation issues. We'd like to have the waiver, but as I said, it's not going to rain on our parade if we don't have it, but we would like to have that waiver, and in any case, we can address that when we bring our new development plan up before you. So I think I've probably talked enough about this here, And I would like, Gretchen, if you're able, Gretchen Brown, who, as I said, is the Chief Executive Officer of Hospice of the Bluegrass, would like to address you a little bit on this. And I'm going to give you the question. Okay, correct. Mr. Murphy, before Ms. Brown gets started, and not to cut her or Mr. Webb off short, time limits always apply around here. You've used about 25 minutes. I'm not going to cut them short, but do try and keep it brief. Okay. Thank you. I don't have much more to say after they get up here. Thank you. And I don't have too much to say either. I guess I just wanted to thank you all for listening to us and explain a little bit why we thought the access was important. And that is when we came to this peace apartment, we've just built, as Mr. Murphy has said, a freestanding hospice unit in Hazard. and we love this unit and we want to do equally well for the community that we've been serving for 35 years as this newer community in Hazard. We kind of wanted to show you a little bit about the quality of our work and what we loved about this is it's in the back of a high wall and so it's very symbolic of the community we serve, which is another reason we love this property on Newtown Pike. It's the Central Kentucky, the horse farms that's so similar. That's what people think of when they think of Lexington. And we serve not just Lexington but all of Central Kentucky, which is another selling point because the interstate access. We serve, of course, Scott, Franklin, Woodford, all the surrounding counties. We were very taken with the scenic resource area because what we thought was it really presents a peaceful transition. And most of you who've used hospice or know people who've used hospice, particularly our inpatient unit, know that while it has a lot of uses, the primary use is that it's often a place where our friends and neighbors go and die. And so being able to transition through the beautiful farmland was a real important piece to us. We don't want to have a place, and we're a little bit worried, even though we know Dr. Poole and we know Dennis Anderson, that we don't know what else is going to be out there. We know that we will be out there. As a citizen, I think a lot about McConnell Springs, which is a sublime piece of property that we go to. some of us for some mental recreation and to be out in the country. But that's a horrible transition, and that's something that's not acceptable for us. We won't put a hospice in a place where we know we can't have a beautiful entrance. Because the screening, it sort of doesn't matter as much what's on the right-hand side if we could have the scenic resource area for our people to come to hospice in that kind of way for patients and families. And I think Woodford probably has some issues that from the fiduciary responsibility of the board he wants to talk about. Sure. Hello, everybody. I'm Woodford Webb with Webb Companies. I've been on the board for about six years, and this is my second year as chairman of the board, and I'm not sure what we've gotten ourselves into here, but we don't want controversy, and we don't want an unsafe entrance. But as Gretchen mentioned, the transition of going in through the property, through the 10 acres that most other users wouldn't want to maintain is really important to us, especially the timing. If we buy this property, and we do have outs, we have plenty of outs, we don't have to buy this, we don't have to do anything. We can stay exactly where we are with our inpatient facility. But to buy it, we would have to create this entrance, And whether it's one year, 10 years, 20, 30, 40, 50, it would be pretty costly to build an entrance, a two-lane road going through this property, and then to have to deconstruct and take it out over time would be quite an expense for the organization. And as a board member, we have a duty to the organization not to misuse funds. And I think it would be a misuse of funds to go in and build hundreds of thousands of dollars for a road that we have to take out in two years. and what it would ultimately create would be a side yard which wouldn't enhance the property for what we're looking to do here. As I said, we don't have to do anything. I think it would be a tremendous asset for not only Lexington but Central Kentucky, and that's why we looked out here by the highways because we serve 32 counties, northern Kentucky, central Kentucky, and eastern Kentucky. So it probably would be a deal killer. I'm not trying to be threatening here, but we would go back to the board. if we don't have a permanent access off Newtown Pike and pull the text amendment. So that would be my recommendation to the board, and as chair, we would meet and go through this. So it is a deal killer as far as I'm concerned. The board may disagree with me, but it's that critical of a piece for the organization. So thank you all. Thank you. Any closing remarks? Mr. Murphy. I'm sorry. I think we've said most all that we're going to say. Again, I think for this lot, really, the hospice and this lot were really made for each other. We've got about seven acres of usable land here. That's what we need. As Gretchen mentioned to you, that scenic resource area is something we can use. We can use it when you're driving in with your loved one coming in here, making a transition from the hubbub of everyday life coming through this landscaped area to get back to the hospice area that's going to take care of you. That's part of the transition they envision when you come in. There'll be more in the building, but they want to start it when you come in there. It's important to us for all the other reasons, safety and all that sort of thing. But we hope very strongly that you will not limit us to only having a temporary access point out to Newtown Pike. Thank you very much, and we'd be happy to answer any other questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions at the moment, or would it be all right to proceed on to hearing from others, and then when I ask questions at the end? Others that would like to speak? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Dr. Poole, and as you know, I own the piece of property just south of the proposed development. I'm a huge hospice fan, but I have some real concerns about this entrance on Newtown Pike. My driveway is at the very peak of the hill. I have the most visible clearance of anybody on Newtown Pike. Now, it's hard to fight with the permit engineer. However, let me give you a little data. It's rough data. I'm not an engineer. But that road starting at Joel Browns is 55 miles an hour. There are two stoplights, one at the northbound exit ramp from I-75 and one at Stanton Way. If you happen to hit those two lights and they're both green, you can easily be going 65 miles an hour when you go by my house. As you may or may not know, we've had a motorcycle fatality at my driveway, and that's very concerning. It was horrible. I have requested that we consider a traffic survey with a car count and a radar. just to see the impact and see what kind of speed people are coming in and out of there. I have my driveway services, semis, horse carriers, and a lot of times that road in front of my driveway is starting to widen, and people use that as a passing lane. It concerns me because people coming out of a hospice facility might not have their mind completely on their driving. Now, from my driveway to that exit, I mean their driveway, going 55 miles an hour, I can reach their driveway in 4.6 seconds. If I'm going 60 miles an hour, I can reach their driveway in 4.2 seconds. With an 88.1 feet per second stopping range, that's not enough distance. particularly if somebody's not paying attention to their driving. I would love to see hospice there. They were brilliant with my brother in his last days. But I think that that's a bad spot for an exit. I think that if that's going to be their driveway, it should be moved closer to Eaton's, or we should reconsider the back access around the detention pond. one other issue i would like to talk about is a visual barrier i did have a chance to meet with joan palmore and gretchen brown they came out and we talked and at that time they assured me that there would be a visual barrier preserved between my property and their property. With their diagram, I'm going to be looking at parking lots. And I would ask that the commission grant me the same visual barrier that they've granted me with the John Drasnick property to the south of me. I think that's all I have to add. Thank you very much. Thank you. Others? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I'm Darby Turner here representing Eaton Farms. And I'll be very brief, and Dick has indicated that we have reached an accord. Back in 2008, Eden Farms and myself on behalf of Eden Farms and Dennis Anderson reached an agreement relative to the type of screening that would be in that 50-foot easement. And this is a depiction of that, which is part of the letter that Dick has put into the record. so I want to make sure that you all have seen that and it is in the record we would also, while this is while Dick is not representing Dennis Anderson at this point that's the expectation of the buffering for the full boundary of the Eden Farm Dennis Anderson properties and that's the accord of that agreement from 2008 also Actually, we thought we were part of the official notice requirement, but it turns out we aren't. So that is part of the agreement as well, that we would be part of that official notice group for any development here. And with that, we basically have no objection to this. In fact, I like the hospice use. It's a nice transition to agricultural use with proper variance, quiet use. So we're fine with the plan. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. I'm Tommy Hearn. I'm Dr. Poole's husband. Hospice is great. They took care of my father. But our piece of property, they're willing to have an access onto Newtown Pike. that access to Newtown Pike was originally turned down, even by the State Department, I think. Please take the microphone with you, Mr. Herndon. This is, I think, probably the original, about the original farm road that was there that came through here. And on the map you had before, it shows the same thing, and it shows going through here and coming down this way to province-wise. This retention pond was not built with mint. It was done, I guess, basically behind everybody's back. It doesn't hold water. It's never had water. and our question is the safety part on this more than anything else. We have tractor trailers coming in and out here. We are 24-7 business. And we're at the top of the hill here, so there's no way in the world they can see past our trucks. And they can't see down the hill coming this way. and right here at our entrance is where the two lane starts going south on Newtown Pike. So when people, when we come up through this way to turn on our piece of property, they pass our trucks on this lane here to go there, so they're not going to be able to see somebody pulling out. The retention pond back here, that this retention pond can be removed. And according to the November of 2008 minutes, Mr. Gross said that this retention pond can be removed and excess of this property can prop this place. To me, that's more logical anyway. You have access to hotels. You have access to restaurants, gas stations, without having to worry about coming out onto Newtown Pike because of our business and because of really phasing Tipton 2. Even on Thursday, when the Shriners or when the Drollery Cup comes out, we can't get out. We can't get out of our property. If there's an accident on I-75 or 64, this is the corridor that is backed up all the way. And so, you know, we just oppose access to here. We think the access ought to be down to here, the way it was originally proposed. this right here we have no we're not going to sell we're not going to develop it we have a business that pertains to horses and in fact we're going to fix and build another barn so access to this might not ever be as far as we're concerned but we still say they're great we just don't like it there we prefer to access here. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak? Questions from the Commission at this point? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Martin, I know that when you had talked about discuss whether access to Newtown Pike would be temporary or permanent. I seem to recall you saying that if we were to approve a text amendment and this were to become a hospice, that you felt more comfortable with the Newtown Pike becoming permanent because the traffic flow would be fewer people coming in and out. Is that accurate? Would it be possible to revise number 16 to say that it could be permanent, but make it conditional upon the approval of a future text amendment? Or how would you feel about that? I think that's the appropriate direction to go, yes, ma'am. Staff, in conjunction with our traffic engineering folks, are concerned about that access if it was a more intense use. Mr. Berkeley? I've got a question about the detention pond that's at the rear of the pool property. Am I correct in assuming that the design of that is to serve the larger development? And my second question on that is, would I be making a reasonable assumption that it doesn't have water now because there's really not that much development out there? Yes, sir. I think that is correct. Yes. Ms. Mundy? Go ahead. Okay. I'm not sure, Tom, if this is a question for you or not, but we do have in our packet from Mr. Murphy the letter from the Department of Highway saying they don't really have a problem with this entrance. My question is, and I guess this would have to probably come from the Department of Highway, they're talking about a flare lane there. We've got tractor-trailers entering and leaving the highway at the pool property. Possibly a flare lane might be considered for there. Also a speed reduction. You've got tractor trailers coming in and out of the property. This is a medical zone. Possibly we could talk with the Department of Highways and get that speed reduced, maybe even up to wherever they say, but Fasig-Tipton on up to the corner. But from what I'm hearing, maybe to help deal with this traffic thing, And, again, I don't think that's in your court, but maybe it's something that we could look at is reducing that speed limit through there, at least up to Ironworks maybe. Yes, ma'am. I think most people would agree that is a good idea. It's staff understanding that the state generally reviews those based on various engineering standards, traffic reports, accident reports, and they will evaluate that over time before they then make a decision on how to adjust the speed limit. Do you know if there's any kind of, and maybe this would be better directed at our new young engineer back there, But do you know if there's any precedent set wherein a medical facility on a somewhat busy road there has been, you know, you see the signs, you know, children playing medical facility, you know, to try to help deal with speed limits? I can't really come up with anything off the top of my head, but I would say it tends to be, in our experience, it tends to be a reaction to an identified problem. And, of course, here we are before you today with a plan for a planned development where we're hoping to anticipate issues and possible problems. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Penn. So, Mr. Martin, when we did Providence Place, there was a huge detention basin put in there next to Ms. Poole's. Was that just for looks, or was that intended to be used as a detention basin? I believe it is intended to be a basin, yes. Well, if that basin is as big as it is, why do you need the detention basin back there where the road could go? I cannot speak to that. The engineers would have to speak to that, Mr. Penn. Because I don't know why it was put in there, but it was put in there, and it covers several acres. The detention basin back there in the back was put in. I don't remember why, but it was put in there. And I've always wondered why we put two detention basins, especially one the size that's out on Newtown Pike. So, Haley, do you know why that was done? well i know it's the it was part of the original design uh that that came in with the roadway and they did that generally at the same time frame. They made arrangements for the stormwater management. Of course, part of Providence Place Parkway, you had to build a storm sewer system to serve that, so you had to have areas to daylight the storm sewers. And then they built those basins with anticipation of the future development of the area. So will you continue that both basins are necessary? I'm saying that was part of the engineer's design at the time. Because when Al Groves spoke to this, there was a lot of discussion about putting this whole park place thing in here. When he spoke to that, and when Joan Whitman asked, does that landlock that property as far as access? And his reply was, no, that smaller basin could be taken out and a road could be put in there. I wondered why he built as big a detention basin as he did up on the Newtown Pike end, but it is huge compared to what the one back there is. And I just wondered if both of them were necessary. Yeah, I would defer to the original design engineer as to the ability to modify that and reduce the sizes. I apologize for that. I just had a brief observation that hit me when Hillard was talking, but you've heard talk about the scenic setback off of Newtown Pike, as you can see on the property, and that does roughly follow a ridge. I was just asking Hillard if he thought that possibly the two basins were positioned due to the drainage from a high point going both one towards Newtown Pike and then back. If you understand, this setback that runs through here, the scenic resource area setback, roughly follows a high point. So it's possible, and again, not being an engineer, and as Hillard said, without reviewing the plans, that the basin that was put in up in the front end of the property may have been because of the slope. And then this one in the back, obviously because of drainage that would go in this area, or storm sewers that would be built because of gravity. Just an observation that may be part of the reason. Mr. Martin, I do have a question. I'll get to it here in just a second. As far as that back retention basin, I believe its original location was a little bit farther to the east, a little bit closer to Providence Place Parkway and a little bit farther to the east than where it is located now. My question, and I'm getting to it, is let me make this statement. With the information that's been presented from minutes where a representative from Mr. Anderson stated that that back retention basin could be relocated if necessary to provide access for the subject property that we're now talking about to be developed, If that is a possibility, is it possible to defer the actual approval of access at this time? It sounds like they're going to have to come back after a text amendment to amend this plan for the hospice facility, for parking and so forth. Is it possible to defer the access to a later date? is to explore the opportunity of letting access come back to Providence Place Parkway like it was originally intended. In general, Mr. Owens, I think when faced with a circumstance like this where there's possible access in the future, it's best to reevaluate access at the time where those alternatives are available. That answers my question. Can we defer it to a later time? Well, I think it definitely sounds like they're going to be bringing this back to us in an amended plan. They will, yes, sir. But I don't believe that rear access option is currently available to them at all. And I think it would need to be available to them before you could actually say no to the access to Newtown Pike. I mean, currently that's all they have. and future access alternatives exist, but they are just that. They're in the future and outside their control. Okay. Other questions at this point? Ms. Beatty? Mr. Martin, how does that become available? Can you talk about that a little bit more? What would make that available? You were saying it's not available at this time, and I fully understand why they want the access on Newtown. I just wanted to be clear on Mr. Owen's question on what would make it available. As more development occurs or something that we would not necessarily be privy to and they would have to bring it to us if they were to negotiate a deal with the owner and choose then to make additional access available. But normally access and future access just happens as property develops, and that's why we are always reevaluating options in certain circumstances. And the owner in this case is Anderson's property. Does that property also run by the detention area also include the pool's property? No, that is Dennis Anderson controls that property. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Other questions? If not, I'm going to ask for Mr. Murphy to provide any sort of brief rebuttal, and we'll proceed on. Well, thank you. Just a couple things here. Before we started, we checked on the safety of this with the Highway Department, and they agreed it's a safe access point out on Newtown Pike. As you all know, that road was reconstructed about, what, four years ago prior to the World Equestrian Games to when they used to be there was no shoulder. You'd have problems with the tire dropping off the side on the right, people overcorrecting, coming back over to the other side. This has a wide shoulder, wider travel lanes, better sight distance because they removed some of those hills on there. a much safer situation now than it was four years ago prior to the World Equestrian Games. We do have, as far as the screening along Dr. Poole's property, on this plan, we are showing a tree preservation area. You can't really read it on the projection, but it says right there, it's a tree preservation area there on that plan. So we're showing that buffering for Dr. Poole, especially along the parking lot there, along her property line. We show that on the plan right now. If needed, we could probably move this access point a little farther north if that was important. if the Highway Department, Traffic Engineering, agreed with that, we could move this access point farther north if needed to. I know we got into this discussion of this retention basin, which exists, and there are no minutes in the record that I know of about a previous plan. I think I was probably there for that discussion. I know, as Mr. Mark mentioned, there's a basin over here. basin over here this is the ridge line the the scenic resource area was designed to go up to the ridge line so you have the open vista from newtown pike up to that ridge line up there the i know there were i know that detention basin was a controversial item when it came through but i also know that it was fully permitted through every agency that had to give a permit for this retention basin back there. It's not just going to serve our property. It's going to serve pool property. It's going to serve this property down there. It's a regional detention basin. The discussion was that if this road would be serving into the property potentially instead of a road which was shown at that point. But we as a hospice have to deal with where we are today. Hospice has to make an investment in this property today. They can't really make an investment if we know that three years from now, maybe we won't have that access point that they were counting on, and they faced their decision to make that investment on. If we have to build this up to the standards we have to do as a two-lane entrance, which we have to do now to provide access, that's the only way in and out of this property, and then three years later go through the expense of tearing it out when this facility is going to be designed partially to use that entrance as part of the transition into hospice. I think as we look at it and the decision that hospice, like any developer, but especially hospice under these circumstances, has to decide now whether it can go ahead with an investment. and part of that important decision-making process is whether it can have the permanent access point onto Newtown Pike. We will have an access point for the forthcoming future. I think Dr. Poole and her husband have mentioned to you they have no plans to develop that property. And if that's the case, this will be, for whatever goes on this property, this will be the access point. we feel, and we don't have any problem with a condition about us having the hospice on here or lower-intensity type use, with our lower-intensity type use on this property, it's not going to be a medical clinic. With our lower-intensity type use, it is entirely appropriate for what we're doing. By the way, when I got the letter from the highway department, we didn't specify hospice use. They just said, yeah, we look at this for whatever you may put on there. Is it a safe entrance for whatever may go on on this property? And they said, yes, it is. So, again, I know I've worked with hospice a long time in trying to have this project come to fruition, and it's important. It's an ideal facility. I'd hate this to be unable to go forward because of some prospect that may never happen, is that we may never have this other access point in from the south anyway. But we will be served at least temporarily up in Newtown Pipe. We think it's entirely appropriate. And again, thank you for listening to us, and we hope you will not impose a condition that we will lose the access to Newtown Pike at some point in the future. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. Come forward. I have one question for you all as well as far as you had asked about visual buffers, so please come forward and make a statement. And as far as your screen and so forth, what has been proposed, is it acceptable to you all? Please come forward. I'm not sure what he means by preserve the tree line. What's there now is some hackberries, some wild cherry trees, and some honeysuckle. If they clean out the honeysuckle, we're going to have a pretty rough-looking fence row down through there. What we had agreed to do on the south side of me is a full visual barrier with some fencing and with some solid barrier trees and shrubs planted. And that's what I'd like. I have horses in paddocks back there and cars and parking lots and wind coming through there when they open that up is not conducive to safe horse rearing. So I'd like some help just to buffer that a little bit. but also we want to keep pedestrians from petting horses and that sort of stuff. Sure. Mr. Murphy, can you address that real quick? I was just talking to Ms. Brown about that, Gretchen Brown, and we would agree to planting, if more trees need to be planted, to plant more trees with the intent of creating a solid visual buffer between the hospice property and her property, and we don't want those things happening that she mentioned either on that. Yes, sir, real quick. Yes. I'm still against the permanent entrance off of Newtown Park. And I have to go back to the minutes of the Planning Commission, and this is Mr. Gross with EA Partners again. did not know, according to this, could not remember why an additional retention basin was put behind our property. And the initial plan proposed that all the runoffs would go to the retention basin in the front at Newtown Pike. That's what was in the minutes. then it says that Mr. Gross noted by that time access may be available through Dr. Poole's property, which it is not, or it may be necessary to relocate the retention basin and access easement to provide developable access to Providence Place Parkway. And that is a permanent, that is something permanent. And it shouldn't be. Mr. Anderson still owns the property that they're talking about buying. He still owns the whole retention basin, the whole property they're talking about, all the way up to Providence Place. So I think they need to, personally, they need to go back and talk to Mr. Anderson. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, any sort of rebuttal? No. Okay. I'll close this part of the hearing at this time and open it up for discussion among commission members, and then we'll get to a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. This discussion is not about the worthiness of hospice. It's a great organization. We all know that. What it is about is land use. I'm concerned about the entrance because it is a piano key type situation which is in the past we have avoided I'm concerned about the stub road because I think it puts undue pressure on Dr. Poole to do something with her property I'm concerned about the detention basin situation I just haven't figured that one out and I don't know if anybody else has really either. Going back to our goals and objectives just past not too long ago, in item E, it is suggested that development be contiguous. And so here we are, hops get skippied over, and I think that's why there are so many questions about this development. because it's not going straight down the road, which normally we like to see. So those are my concerns about this development. Thank you. Mr. Pinn. I have the dubious honor of being around here too long. This discussion when we did the ED land and when we did the Providence Parkway, Providence Parkway was to be a main corridor, to have a stoplight when it was necessary. It's developed, and you can see it every day you can go down the road. The first piece of property that we develop or have a potential development north of Providence Parkway, all of a sudden we don't want to use Providence Parkway. And it goes back to Ms. Plumlee and the piano key thing. Ms. Whitman was right when she asked the question does that landlock that piece of property when we approve this development or approve this zone change and it has and the reason it has is we're doing piecemeal development and I understand why you all are here and I understand the piece of property and I really like the use my problem is that I don't want to kill somebody when we're doing a bad job of planning and 350 feet over Crest of a Hill is not enough time to stop if you're doing 50 miles an hour, let alone 60 or 65. And so do we have to kill four or five people and then decide, oh, we've got to have a connection to Providence Parkway? Well, that's what Providence Parkway is put there to start with for. You can make a nice entrance and exit off Providence Parkway, or maybe you could come in off one and go in off the other. But trying to pull out of there and turn left over that hill is not a safe situation. and I don't have anything but good things to say about hospice and I think that's a great use for that land and I think it fits in well with the 300 foot setback with the visual part of it I don't understand the two I was here for both the detention basin discussions and Mrs. Whitman was right that's where that property needed to be connected to so if I vote against this it's not because I'm voting against hospice. It's because I don't want to put a major road in like Providence Parkway and then not use it. Mr. Cravens? You know, I was also here during all that retention basin and Providence and all that stuff. But, you know, when you pick a piece of property to locate your business on, And ingress and egress is everything to it. If you can't get the right entrance and exit, you don't buy that piece of property. I mean, you go on to the next one. And, I mean, that's what makes you pick a piece of property to begin with. And, in my opinion, an existing entrance like that one has been there forever. That trumps all this other stuff. I mean, that ought to be allowed. It's there. It's been there a long time. The road when Newtown Pike was rebuilt, it's all built into it. It was planned to go back in there. And I think we have to concern ourselves with the limits of this piece of property. They don't own that retention basin back there. They're not buying that. They're not buying any of that land behind their lot. Their lot stops right there at the back. They're going to drain and retain into that detention basin. But, I mean, I guess if you're going to say that that exit and entrance shouldn't be allowed, then maybe Dr. Poole shouldn't be allowed. Maybe they should have to come in off Providence Parkway. I mean, that's kind of what you're saying. That's part of that whole development, and I'm sure they don't want to give up their entrance. So I would favor making that permanent. I, too, have had experience with hospice from my father, and I think that's an excellent place to have this, a very tranquil place. That entrance would be very calming going in there. We have a letter from the Transportation Cabinet as part of our evidence here. It says there's adequate sight distance at this location to upgrade the existing entrance. written by somebody, an engineer from the state of Kentucky. So I wouldn't have any problem at all making this a permanent entrance. Ms. Blanton? I understand the concerns about Newtown Pike, and I think this would be a very valid discussion if we were talking about a zone change. But we're not talking about a zone change. This land has been zoned ED, and this is about as low traffic of an ED property as you're going to get. We could be having semis and shift changes going on at this property, and they would be using, you know, we talk about temporary versus permanent, but if that new town were the only entrance and exit for the next 10, 15, 20 years until the road is completely built, no matter if it goes through the pool property or goes around the pool property, you're still talking years, and you could have semis and large numbers of workers having a shift change on that new town pike. And this is a much less intrusive use than any other ED zone use would be, and I'm in favor of moving that to permanent. I'm sympathetic to the concerns, but this is ED land, and that's what we're dealing with. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley. I've kind of sat here and tried to think of uses that would really be better than this, and I can't think of anything at all. I think it is a perfect setting for this property. It provides a very nice transition to the rural areas. It's supported by the adjoining property to the north and to the east, which I think is important. I think the other thing for me in regards to the entrance, we've got the folks at the highway department and we've got our own folks here at the city that have said that this would be an appropriate place for a permanent entrance. And I think that's very important for us to go against what the professionals are saying. I have a little bit of an issue with that, I guess. I do see the need to, you know, eventually to have, you know, a second means for the safety issues on the site. So I also would be in favor of making this a permanent entrance. Ms. Beatty. First of all, let me say I do think that the development, the plan for hospice to be there is extremely compatible with that piece of property. And I will agree wholeheartedly with Carla that it's ED land and that this is all compatible. It conforms to our comprehensive plan. and we get so concerned about wanting to do the right thing and to develop some of the land that we have sort of earmarked as ED. So I lean heavily toward that being it's compatible, it looks good, it feels good. However, I do understand the safety issue that we are anticipating. We know that we are saying that do we have to wait for five people to be killed there, but no one has been killed there right now at that particular entrance. I am well aware of the incident with the motorcycle. That was a terrible accident there at the pool's entrance. So I'm really leaning toward a permanent access, while at the same time I'm really going to criticize us as planners that we can plan all of this and have Providence place and have all of this vision, but somehow we can't connect the pieces so that it is much smoother. And I don't know what to do with that. I haven't heard an answer today that would make me change anything to give me more information. So at this point, I think it's compatible. I think it's the right thing to do. So I'm really leaning toward making that a permanent access. Ms. Mundy. Yes, I too would like to, first of all, sing the accolades of hospice. I don't know what I would have done without them with both my mother and my father. So there's a tender spot in my heart for hospice anyway. But I'm kind of a newbie on the commission. I still say that. I've been here a year, I guess. So I don't have the historic value that a lot of these other folks do have. But I do know that we have talked about and talked about and talked about the fact that we can't seem to get anything going in the economic development areas. This, to me, is a perfect fit for this property. It's a tranquil place. It's backing up. We've got horse farms on both sides. To me, it just seems to be a good fit. It does fit everything. We have a report from the staff that it falls in line. So I, too, would have to say I am in support of the permanent access there. My one request would be, and I don't know that we can do this, but I would still like to have the Department of Highways look at that speed limit through there. I think it would help you as well, ingress and egress to your property as well. So I think that's something that maybe we need to, I don't know how we do that, if we can do that, but I think that's something that needs to be looked at. So thank you. It seems like most everybody except for myself have weighed in, So I was being, I guess, the proper chairman waiting until the end. First of all, I've got to agree with everybody as far as hospice. My father was the first hospice patient that was accepted at the Markey Cancer Center, probably a large part to Dr. Young at the time, but hospice worked very well with us and provided great services. I agree with the use, possible use of it. It could be no better setting. My concern is Newtown Pike. I've got to agree with Frank Penn in the fact that the original intent was for this development to come back to Providence Place Parkway. That was the original intent. We've heard information from historical information where Dennis Anderson's representative said that that retention basin could be relocated if needed to provide access for development on this piece of property. That's where I am. Newtown Pike has been improved in the last few years. I had a large part of it. I was involved immensely with that. It's a much better road, but I can tell you also the traffic on that is much faster than it was at that time. One fatality has been mentioned less than a month ago. There was a second motorcycle accident almost directly associated, not associated with, but in front of the proposed access here. And it all had to do with traffic going north over the hill at a high rate of speed. Information has been said as far as Dr. Poole's entrance on Newtown Pike that she's guided. Once again, the intent, if that land develops, you've got Mary Fay Place there. The intent is for that land to be funneled back to Providence Place. The original, as far as the proposed access that we're talking about, it has been there for many, many years as an agricultural entranceway. And, you know, not a commercial entranceway. That's the way I'm looking at it. And I think, you know, we should maintain that. I would dearly love to see this be investigated further and go back to the original intent as far as bringing access for this development back to Providence Place Parkway. So with that, everybody has spoken, and I appreciate everyone coming. Can I say one thing? No, sir. We've closed this part of the hearing. I appreciate it very much, but I think we're getting ready to figure out where you're going to be. We're going to ask for a vote right here and there, I believe. So whenever anyone's ready. Mr. Cravens? Are you ready for a motion, Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Okay, I'd like to make a motion to approve DP 2013-36 and down at number 16, I guess we need to either, I'd like to say that's a permanent entrance. Is that the correct wording, Mr. Martin? Yes. Okay, so 16 would just say Newtown Pike will be at permanent entrance. What's that, Frank? It might be at taper on Newtown Pike. Okay. And Frank wants to add to number 16 that the entrance be tapered. Okay, the permanent entrance be tapered into the site. So move. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with the 16 revised conditions, changing to number 16 to read that the Newtown Pike entrance access will be permanent and also be tapered. Am I correct? As I said, motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy. If there's no further discussion on the motion, please vote when it comes forward. The waiver is not part of it. That motion passes. Staff, legal, Tom Martin, do we need a motion on the waivers? We do need a motion on the waiver. Mr. Chairman? Yes. I can't find my waiver here. I don't even know why this waiver is even needed. I mean, it's... If I make a motion for it, I'm going to move to approve it. I'm going to move approval for the waiver. Okay. Okay. Some of my findings would be that Dr. Poole has stated that they're not going to develop their property, so there wouldn't ever be access through there. So, therefore, you wouldn't need to terminate that street there if it's not ever going to be there. How about that? Is that some kind of a... Does that work? They're asking to terminate the street up at their driveway. They're not going to run a street through there. Well, we don't need a waiver if they're going to run a street through there. Okay, then just don't move on it. Would that work? Would you accept that? Would you let the waiver lay there and not do anything with it? No, I think at this point we need to disapprove the waiver. Yeah. Staff. Ms. Jones, good afternoon. Good afternoon. I think what Mr. Cravens is saying is that there would be no negative impact on public safety by approving the waiver. Okay. Is that what you're saying? That's precisely what I said. Well, not in those words, but that's what I meant. Okay, so we do have a motion to approve the waiver. Mr. Penn? Actually, I do need to get a second. Yes, sir. Do we have a second on that? Okay, motion's been seconded. Do we have discussion, Mr. Penn? Being as this is probably not going to be the development plan we're going to see, I don't see the need for this waiver at this time. And so if Mike is moving to approve the waiver for his reasons, contrary to the staff, then I would urge us to vote down his motion for approval and accept the staff's motion for disapproval. Ms. Plumlee. I also think we need to adhere to what the staff recommended on this one. Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion? If not, the motion is for approval of the waiver in regards to DP 2013-36, Kingston Hall, Unit 2, Phase 1. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion fails. So at this point I would say that the waiver has been disapproved. That would be a fair statement. The waiver has been disapproved. Thank everyone for coming. We're going to take a five-minute recess, and I will make note that I will have to leave myself and turn the meeting over to Mike Cravens. Thank you. I'd like to reconvene the meeting. And we're going to start with the, I believe, the Chancellor Subdivision. whatever the staff is ready doesn't look like they're ready they should have said you had to back I mean, I just didn't. I just didn't. I just didn't. I didn't even know. And, like, it was, it's a 68-60. Mr. Chairman, welcome. Acting Chairman. Members of the Commission. Yes, Chairman. The next plans on your agenda begin on page 2. But that wasn't District 7. Final subdivision plan. Item A, Plan 2013-52F, Chancellor's Subdivision. This is a proposed subdivision of the Springs property on Harrodsburg Road. Associated with this final record plat, you find on page 5 of your agenda two development plans, Item E and Item F, DP 2013-51 and DP 2013-52, Chancellor's Subdivision, The Springs, Lot B and Lot C. And for those of you not on the subdivision committee, we would explain that on the development plan, and they are identical, you have two different owners, two different corporate entities that are developing on the property. They asked that they be allowed to submit two different development plans so that they might pursue two different schedules of development. And we, staff, agreed that that would be appropriate. We would not want one schedule or issues facing one development to negatively impact the other. From a practical point of view, whichever plan gets certified first, the second one will have to reflect their information as approved. Staff doesn't anticipate this being a serious problem. The information is very consistent on the plans. And the plan that you see before you today, again, we only colored up one, but they are identical. I will start with the record plat. You have been handed a gold sheet for rise conditions on the plat. the the plat again as I stated is here here's Herdsburg Road here's Lane Island, here's Mitchell Avenue here's the current lot where CVS was developed in this location the plat is recommending or is proposing to subdivide the property into three lots if you look at the development plan You can see CVS, here's a lot, here's a lot, here's a lot. That is the purpose of the plat, to subdivide the property. The issues, any conditions that affect the plat are primarily development plan conditions. So for that reason, we wanted to present those together. For that reason, you can look at your revised conditions and see that they are basically sign-off conditions. We are recommending approval of the plan on the record plat. Now, I am going to go ahead and go to the development plan and discuss those issues because I think then I can briefly return to the record plat and explain to you the impact on the record plat and what would be recommended on the plat relevant to the development plan issues. Again, here we are at Harrodsburg Road at the intersection of Lane Allen. Tofflin Mall sits right up here. Mitchell Avenue is to the rear. Clay's Mill is back down here. Again, Lane Allen. I'm sure people are aware of the Old Springs Motel location. The development plan that you see before you proposes development on Lot B and Lot C. Again, CVS currently exists in this location. This area was on the previous plan as a preliminary development plan, as was this area when you approved the CVS. This area still remains as a preliminary development plan. The applicant is proposing a McDonald's right here. Those of you familiar with that into town, drive Harrodsburg, Broadway, particularly in the mornings to know that there's a McDonald's right down here past the Shell Station. That's going to be relocated to this location. What you see here is a proposed Rafferty's. That's the chain. As you know, they're already located here in Lexington in two locations that would like to develop here. the plan the McDonald's is roughly 6,300 square feet Rafferty's is proposing 10,000 square feet this is an 18,000 square foot retail building again on a preliminary plan it will not develop without a final development plan you can see that they are proposing to utilize the existing access point at this location. Now this is existing. It was approved. When CVS was approved, this drive aisle through here was part of that plan. And that serves as the full access point to this development from Harrodsburg Road. CVS, and this is just to refresh your memory, it's got a right in, right out in this location and a right in, right out at this location. There is a full access point. That exists here on Mitchell Avenue. On the preliminary, they are proposing an additional access point at such time that this would develop in this location. You can see the parking that they are requesting with this development located here. The overall parking, including the CVS, is 346 spaces. Required is 206. for the overall development. And I'm going to get to that briefly when I explain the conditions to you and explain that discussion that we had on the parking. The blue areas that you see here are detention, proposed detention. Again, you may recall CBS put underground detention on their development in this location. McDonald's is proposing it here. There is proposed detention in this location. There is also future detention proposed here, although that's actually a high spot and staff would anticipate there may be changes in detention should this develop in the future. Down through here is a large easement and a drainage area. There is a spring located over here approximately known as K Spring. It drains into the pipe. There is a pipe. This is pipe. The drainage is piped. It begins right at where Kay Springs flows into this area. It's piped down here, and then it opens up before it once again enters a pipe, flows under Harrodsburg Road, under Turflin Mall, and off to the creek. Staff, again, has handed out revised recommendations on this nice orange color paper, and also pink. And again, we've done that for you because one's Plan B and Plan C, but they are identical, and I think you'll find that the conditions are identical. There are standard sign-off conditions on these plans. Traffic engineering, engineering, building inspection, addressing, bike and ped, division of fire, division of waste management. Now, a considerable amount of cleanup was done, and you can see there was a large number of discussion items that also, you see, have been in staff's recommendation resolved. I would say at this point that immediately after technical committee, staff began communicating with the applicant. That culminated in a sit-down meeting on Monday of this week with the applicant and their representatives where a lot of these situations were thoroughly discussed and solutions hammered out and commitments by the applicant were made, which, again, has resulted in our revised conditions. The first cleanup condition, Clarify DD Cross-Section, that was on Mitchell Avenue where we just wanted to clarify the existing width. Mitchell Avenue as it intersects Lane Allen, and then as it goes around the curve that you can see there, there's a slight widening. We just wanted to be absolutely clear that that was accurate. We have relocate, oh, pardon me, addition of Harrodsburg Road improvements. That is a major, major issue on this plan, and it is connected to some other issues. so I'm going to go on to some of the easier cleanup conditions or things that were easy to resolve on this plan, and I will return briefly to that issue. Denote Mitchell Avenue traffic coming. Again, that is a large issue similar to the right turn improvement. This all relates to the traffic impact this property has on the Mitchell Avenue neighborhood as well as the surrounding streets. There was a, again you can see, discussed necessary cut-through traffic calming improvements. That has been done in that with this revised plan, they are showing traffic calming in this area. CVS, you may recall, did it by a raised table in this area. This was because of staff's concern about easy cut-through to Mitchell. So they slowed it down here, and again, the offset entrance serves. With the traffic calming that's going to be done in this area along the aisle, the parking aisle, the de facto service road, and then, again, as you can see as the entrance comes in, in order to maneuver through this site, there's going to be considerable turns and there's going to be a slowing of traffic until they can get to this existing. So, again, we feel, staff feels that they've addressed traffic calming in a good manner on this plan. In addition, there was a discussion item on pedestrian access through a site. We always like to see good pedestrian access. We want people to walk around. They've added those. You can see these areas. These are crosswalks that have been added. There is a sidewalk system being proposed, again, that will allow people to move through the site as well as off Mitchell Avenue here and here that will allow, again, pedestrian movement in the site. We discussed lighting in the area. That was something that came about from the previous discussion with CVS, and the Planning Commission felt it important. In our discussions with them, they represented to us what they intended to do. First of all, we have requirements, our ordinance, that clearly states that light shall be directed down and away from adjoining properties. That's done through a box-type fixture. You can see, if you go look at CVS, they did the same thing there. There was some discussion about height with the applicant. It's our understanding that McDonald's has one standard. Rafferty's has a slightly different standard, a little bit taller. I think that you'll hear from the applicant that they're willing to coordinate that and address that height issue in a consistent manner, along with using the box-type fixtures to wreck that light down and away. So staff was very comfortable with that discussion with the applicant as well. The speaker volume that applies only to McDonald's, not to Rafferty's, they have a pickup point but not a drive-through. Staff, it was interesting for those at the subdivision committee to hear about how they do that. It's advanced technology, and it responds to the ambient noise. So if someone with a loud vehicle comes through, the speaker is louder so they can hear it. If it's quieter, apparently the speaker is quieter, so there's quite advances in technology that they explain to your subdivision committee. Again, I've already addressed the internal pedestrian connections. And then item 11 I'm going to jump to and is item 12 on your pink sheet. But that's just to change the second floor retail use on lot D. And that's this area. Staff was very concerned that this was just shown as retail and two stories. And we had concerns about how well that might function. and felt like that a more appropriate use in this area would be retail on the first floor offices on the second. We'd like to have that denoted on the plan. They did agree to that in our meeting. And again, I would just add that you will see a final development plan on this site in the future. So staff is comfortable with that. Now, I've jumped around a touch, and that is because the remaining issues are really parking issues. access issues, traffic impact sort of issues, and they're all tied in together, and I think I can address those as one. We distributed to you a little table. It's been highlighted. Along with that and attached is parking information that the applicant submitted to staff within a day of the technical committee. staff raised the issue of parking we were concerned because the cumulative numbers on this site when you first look at them look a little high CVS has more parking considerably more parking than what our ordinance would recommend and that's kind of where it started so it was a cumulative effect McDonald's they're only asking for 12 additional over the required Not really a significant number in staff's estimation, nor the retail area on D, which, again, you'll see a plan on. I think they're roughly 11 over the requirement. It was the Rafferty's restaurant that gave staff considerable pause at the time the plan came in because they were asking for a considerable number, more than double the required on their site. Now, they've revised this plan. They've increased their seating on this plan, so their required went up a little bit. So the overage is no longer quite as high. They are requesting 140 parking spaces to serve this Rafferty's. And we had a very, very good discussion with them. The numbers that we've distributed to you are numbers they supplied to staff that compares other Rafferty's restaurants. I mean, they have a very, and I know they're going to be happy to share this with you, they have a very strong feeling for what they need for their restaurants to function. We've reviewed those numbers. We talked them over at length with traffic engineering, and staff is comfortable with those numbers. There's several things that go along with that. One is, again, that they have 35 employees that need parking. Secondly, they had good support from their other sites on these numbers, including Hamburg. This site is only requesting eight more parking spaces than the current Hamburg Rafferty's has. So, again, very consistent with existing restaurants in Lexington for this Rafferty's restaurant. Now, there were concerns with the parking and conflicts with the parking proposed. And that started out primarily along this area here with this drive aisle. And staff was very concerned about parking conflict here, particularly with a McDonald's being proposed with the drive-thru. Even though they've got two eyebrows, this is going to be the new corporate standard with double eyebrows. Lots of room to stack in here, but we were very concerned about stacking here and an impact on Harrodsburg Road. That was a big concern. So the big news, the good news, I think one of the most important things to stress on this plan is that early on, staff said, we want a right turn lane. They couldn't commit to that immediately. With this plan, you can see they have. There's going to be a right turn lane constructed along their frontage to serve this entrance. Now, the standards for that, we double-checked those with our traffic folks today, is going to require most of this frontage that they control to be a turn lane. now that turn lane reduces the possibility of conflict on harrisburg road to just an extent that it makes some of these areas of conflict much more minimal and really has given staff a lot a higher level of comfort because of that because again these conflicts aren't going to impact the right of way in the traveling public and and impact safety in that regard it's going to be internal. In addition, we have placed a condition on the plan subsequent to our conversation with them that in this area, and including this little area, which is Rafferty's, we have that designated as employee parking. So that, again, you don't have a lot of customers coming and going and creating a lot of conflict in this area. And so staff was comfortable with that. And again, This all relates very much to the impact that this development is going to have and with the numbers we showed you with the increase in trips and traffic that restaurants, in particular with drive-thrus, generate. Now that brings us also to a very important point, one that the Planning Commission expressed strongly when CVS was approved, and one that staff shared, and that is to protect Mitchell Avenue from the impact of this increased traffic and cut-through traffic and that sort of thing. And as you may recall, that was talked about a lot and for a long time for CVS. What we have achieved with the applicant is an agreement to participate financially in traffic calming devices, structures. Specifically, it will be tables, just like this table in here. They don't call them speed bumps. They call them speed tables to slow traffic down on Mitchell. Now, there has been, I know, discussion about some additional items and that sort of thing. But at this time, there is a commitment, there's a monetary commitment that they have made both to the neighborhood and to the city to participate in putting these traffic calming devices on Mitchell Avenue. And that will address the cut through and hopefully slow down the traffic. And again, staff thinks that's very important in the fact that they've also, the site itself will slow traffic down. So again, we've made tremendous progress with them, and we've achieved what we think are good commitments from the applicant to address the issues, that the issues being primarily one of traffic and impact on the neighborhood. but you may very well hear, and I would anticipate that you would, some concern about stormwater. And you all have heard this discussion many times. We have standards that exist that govern our stormwater quantity controls and water quality as well. In a redevelopment, and this is a redevelopment of an existing site, they are not held to the same requirements of a greenfield development. However, as I pointed out to you, you can see that CVS set the tone. These applicants have followed. They are proposing water quantity controls, detention controls. In addition, they are required to meet water quality controls. And in our conversations with them, they have committed to, in fact, McDonald's is going to exceed the water quality requirements on their site. So I think you will hear some concern expressed about that, and that is a legitimate concern. And staff was very happy in our conversations with the applicant to know and to hear that they intend to address those items concerning stormwater. and again, as I described, the traffic situation. Now, very briefly, you've heard the development plan presentation. The plat, the primary thing that needs to be reflected on this plat relative to the development plan issues that I've described to you is they'll have to show the appropriate right of way to accommodate the turn lane. and frankly that hadn't been designed yet and we won't know it'll have to be shown on this plat once that design has been worked out and approved by the Department of Transportation and then the plat can be recorded and I do not doubt that they've given some thought to that already and then we just want to make sure that due to the drainage through here that the easements are adequate to accommodate what exists in this area in terms of drainage. With that, I would point out that staff is recommending approval of both development plans and the record plat at this time subject to the conditions on your revised handout. And if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. All right. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Wilson. Clarification for the Mitchell Avenue Lane-Allen. Is there a stop sign or any kind of caution at that intersection? Yes, sir. There is a stop sign right here on Mitchell. Right there, okay. Yes, sir. There is a crosswalk. That was an initial concern. That was put in with CVS. There is, of course, a full light right here. And nothing else until you get back up here to the Turfland Mall entrance, and then there's a light at that location as well. And then one other follow-up question on Mitchell Avenue. You mentioned something about traffic reduction devices. I think that's an interesting euphemism. The question is, where are they placed? Are they placed? That's an excellent question. We had originally considered having some installed along their frontage that they controlled. It wouldn't be CVS, but it would be through here. Subsequently, in talking with traffic engineering, it is not a good idea to put tables in a curve because people are turning their wheels and they're going up over a bump in the road designed to slow them down. So you want to put those tables in straight stretches, which exist further back down in the neighborhood. Ms. Plumlee. Yes, would you remind me where the dumpsters are? Yes, ma'am. They are proposing dumpsters here and here and McDonald's back in here. Again, they're showing one here, but this is very preliminary. Frankly, I don't anticipate that remaining in that location due to its proximity to the adjoining neighborhood. But they are proposing them here. It's our understanding they wish to use private service. However, they will have to meet our requirements for double enclosures, And that's because it's not unlikely in the future they'll choose to use public service as opposed to private service. All right. Karen Mundy. Yes, Tom. I am still real concerned about people parking and backing out onto that service road. And I know you've resolved it somewhat with that being employees. The ones I'm so concerned about are those four there, and I think there's a circle four on them right there. Yes, ma'am. You've got, you're coming in, and that is, if my understanding and remembrance is right, that is a full entrance there. So you will be going out and turning left or going right either, coming out of there. You've got those four parking places there. You're coming in. You're going out. You've got an aisle there and an aisle there. I can just see that being a nightmare there for fender benders and boo-boos. Yes, ma'am. And staff has shared that concern and expressed it consistently, that these were among the most problematic. And I think traffic engineering agreed. But again, with the traffic calming, the turn lane, the specification that they be employee only did help with our level of comfort. But yes, I think there is, of course, potential for some problems there. Okay. Do we have to have those? It sounds like they have plenty of parking. Do they need that to meet their parking? Well, again, Ms. Beatty, they submitted numbers which we have given to you, which appear very well thought out, and they really believe are very needed to the operation of their restaurant. Okay, okay. They are consistent. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. I have a whole number of people here with me. We have two applicants or three applicants, previous or current owners, and so we've generated a lot of interest just on our own team. But with me, we have representatives from Rafferty's, David Bernardo, and Scott Lindsay, area supervisor, And then Alan Blankenship and Steve Maxwell, architects for Rafferty's are here and from out of town with McDonald's. Roderick Saylor with GRW engineers. Mary Ann Worvey, who you may remember from Zaremba Group, who was involved with the CVS development. John Nippora from Endres, representing the Platte. Matt Carter with Vision Engineering helping with Rafferty's, and Joy Settick from my office helping with design, and then Sherry McMullen with Schrader Commercial Properties, and she has a history with the property because she was an assistant manager of the Springs, so she's continued interest in the property, and Cindy Mulvihill is here as well, the owner of the Springs, and it was her family who were the prior owners of the Springs. I'd like to thank the staff for all their cooperation with us, with many conversations and calls and e-mails and meetings throughout the last three weeks. and I'd also like to thank MANO, the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization, for their cooperation we've met a number of times. I didn't know I could have so many people in my office at the same time, so we've learned the limits of our office. But we had several productive meetings. We kind of advanced after each meeting, and we've made good strides with them, and I'll let them speak for themselves when they have the opportunity as well. Tom presented the issues very succinctly. Some highlights that he went over the lighting. We recognize lighting to be a concern. Our interest is in minimally lighting the property based on photometrics to serve the safety and security of our customers at night. We have a similar light structure that we're anticipating, a shoebox-style lighting that will be directed down, and there's either a standard that directs straight down or there's one that tilts to further direct it away from the joining residential properties, and we're committed to that. The stormwater, we are meeting and exceeding both stormwater volume, quantity, and also stormwater quality on the site by use of the surface basin in the corner next to Rafferty's and by an underground basin on site at the McDonald's property. The turn lane, we've agreed to the turn lane. That was a bit of a hard pill to swallow for the applicants. As late as January 30th, we had email from the state indicating that no turn lane would be required, and that was during the due diligence for the property by the applicants, And so that came as a little bit of a shock, but we've absorbed that as well as a number of other things. The parking, Rafferty's has 20 stores throughout the southeast that they've developed. They are not interested in building more parking than they need. and feel that they can substantiate every space that they've shown on the plan. I've looked at the numbers generated by staff and by Matt Carter on the ITE counts, and they are surprisingly close, like to the spot. We started out with 149 spaces on site. We're now down to 140 spaces, and that's specific. That is the number on the IT counts. I also evaluated several restaurants of similar character, a casual sit-down, high-turnover restaurant in Lexington, in Hamburg, in Townley Center, and they are consistent with the number of parking spaces that we're proposing here based on the size of the respective restaurants. It's Applebee's, Red Lobster, and it's all good. So that was justifiable in my mind that Rafferty's knows their business and has picked a number that they can operate their business. We've seen a lot of restaurants that are under-parked. sometimes they fail or sometimes they put an undue burden on the neighborhood. We're somewhat of an isolated location. We're not a strip center. We're not an urban site with a network of streets that we can disperse our parking on. We've got to park on site. We don't want to be a burden on Mitchell Avenue with parking. You remember the Springs, or at least I do. the Springs was a significant destination spot in Lexington and they had Cindy and Sherry shared with me a parking count from the Springs and they have is it the same or is it more than we're it was ironically the same of what we're proposing today for the whole site. I did an overlay of the Springs Motel, and I had forgotten how big it was and how much parking they had out there. And yet, with the parking that they did have, the events that they had, the conference center, the dining room, the lounge, where do people park? Well, they filled up the Springs parking lot, and they parked all up and down Mitchell Avenue. and we do not want that to happen. We want to contain our parking on site and be a good neighbor to Mitchell Avenue. The next street down is probably not a street you're going to find to park when you're looking for a parking spot. It's just not a known street. You're certainly not going to cross Harrodsburg Road, and there's nowhere on Lane Allen to park either. So we are trying to accommodate our parking on site, and we've come up with a number that we feel is appropriate. With regards to the specific four parking spaces, we've identified those as employee only. The employees' shifts will be generally shift changes will be at slow periods of the activity for the restaurants, early in the morning, before the noon rush, and late in the evening. So if there's a place for employees, that's probably a good place for them so that they can be using those spaces during the active. They'll be parked during the highest use of that intersection. The traffic calming, we've had a number of numbers that we've worked with. We initially met with the neighbors and proposed a $5,000 contribution to cover their share of a cost-sharing program with the city to provide traffic calming. At a subsequent meeting with the city, the city indicated that they would not be in a position to do a cost-sharing and that the neighbors would have to bear the full burden, and they gave us a cost estimate of $10,000. We accepted that, and to ease the burden of the neighbors, we agreed to contribute $10,000. With a subsequent meeting with the neighbors, They felt that the $10,000 solution that the city was proposing didn't suit their interest of how they wanted the traffic calming to be addressed, and we agreed to increase that to $20,000 to allow the city to construct the traffic calming devices that the neighbors in the city can agree to constructing. That will be in the form of a payable to the LFUCG and a directed fund that will be directed specific for the Mitchell Avenue traffic calming. And that money would be provided at the closing of the stores. and we've met all of the conditions that have been part of the zoning requirements we've exceeded in several cases and i would ask for for your approval as indicated with with regards to the denotes we have no are the final conditions there the regarding the denote of the traffic calming timing and cost sharing. I've addressed that. We're identifying the parking on the service road as employee parking area and number 11 and 12, depending on what sheet you're looking at. Yeah, we agreed to call lot D retail or office, and that just got omitted on our plan on the last date. So we're agreeable to that as well. and ask for your approval. If there's any questions, then I've got my full group behind me to support me, and if you have any specific questions that I can't address, we've got somebody here that can. All right. Thank you, Tony. Any questions for the African? I have one, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Very quickly. You indicated that you, and first of all, I understand that you're trying to contain the parking on the property itself, but as it relates to Mitchell Avenue, is that going to be volunteering no parking, or is there going to be no parking signs placed there? We have not discussed no parking on Mitchell Avenue. I think traffic engineering has a process that they go through that would indicate whether signage of no parking is appropriate. We don't anticipate people parking on Mitchell Avenue. I don't know. I think we could discuss that with traffic engineering. Yes. About the traffic calming devices, the applicant gives the city $20,000, and then they build the devices? The city will build them, yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Now, I would guess there's some people in the audience here to speak on this. Are there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak? Yes, sir. Yes, please. If you will, give me your name and address. My name is Michael Galbraith. I am president of the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Association. I live on Mitchell Avenue. Okay. We want to thank the developers for their willingness to coordinate, cooperate with the neighborhood on our concerns, not only on site-specific design, but most importantly, traffic impacts. We want to acknowledge their generous contribution that they have provided for traffic calming implementation for our residential street, which is primarily single-family, owner-occupied homes. The money, as has been explained, will be placed into an account with the city, and we look forward to working with the city and the traffic office on designing and implementing these traffic calming measures for the five-year limit that will be placed on the agreement. It is because of this funding commitment and the other site design enhancements and improvements that the developers have been willing to include in the plan. The Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Associate Organization supports approval of the development plan as it appears. Thank you. Very well. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to close this part of the hearing and turn it over to the commission. Frank, did you have something? Yes. First of all, I want to thank everybody that worked on this. From where we were in subdivision to where we are now, it's truly amazing, Tony. and that's a pretty impressive team you've got there. And the neighborhood came to our subdivision committee. They expressed their concerns. You all heard them, and you worked it out. I wish all of our development plans would get the cooperation that this one's gotten because it is a touchy situation, and obviously everybody wanted to do it for the right reasons, and I don't have anything to say about the development plan because I think you've accomplished what you set out to do. But it's amazing to watch this happen, and thank you. All right. Ms. Beatty. I should just take the opportunity to say I agree with Mr. Penn, but I do want to say that this is an exemplary example of when we start out with so many discussion items and having all of the entities come together without us making the decision and come up with something that we can approve, to have both the neighborhood, a residential neighborhood that is well-established, two development entities, McDonald's and Rafferty's, right next door to each other, and be able to work through this. I agree. From subdivision to now, you all want to be applauded. So thank you, and you certainly have my approval. All right. Thank you very much. Let's go on and have some motions. I believe I would take these one at a time. Okay. Motions. I don't want you to do the yellow. Do this one first. Yeah, I'll make them. You can do it. You're going to do it, Will. Yeah, sure. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion for approval of DP 2013-51 and with the 11 noted conditions. All right, very well. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Everybody vote when it comes up. That motion passes. Next. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a recommendation of approval of DP 2013-52. And is our sheet numbered wrong here? Wait a minute. 52F? Has it got the 12? It's the revised staff recommendation. Okay. With the 12 revised conditions, I don't have the pink sheet here. Farewell. We have a motion and a second. Everybody vote. That motion passes. Mr. Chairman, I will make recommendation of approval of Plan 2013-52F with the nine noted conditions. We have a motion and a second. Everybody vote. That motion passes. So all three, thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Move approval of bonds. Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Second. We have a second. All in favor, vote when you can. The chair's faster than the electronic. Yes. We got some more. We got it. We made a motion. We made a motion. Okay, that motion passes. All right, back on the agenda. Good afternoon. We're going to look at page 6. We have DP2013-53 Greendale Hills United Unit 3. But if you also should have with you a blue copy for the Greendale Hills revisions. This property is Zone B1. This is located over near the Masterson Station area. We have Lucille Drive, Malundi Way. We have Greendale Road, and they're showing right now the future Greendale Road also. So with this, they're showing several different building layouts for people for proposals for how to develop this property. We received a copy of a development plan, revised copy the day before the subdivision committee meeting. We had several discussion items. We weren't able to contact the other government agencies to talk about them. But since then, we've been able to meet with the different agencies, and we were able to resolve several of these discussion items. So we have been able to remove three of them and change one. So the staff recommended, can now recommend approval with the 13 conditions. We have our standard conditions for typical sign-offs, engineering traffic, building inspection, addressing urban forester, environmental quality, bike and ped, fire and water control, waste management, water quality. We just want to clarify the note 13 on the lotting. and then remove proposed entrances proposed for Selo Vista Drive or Road and denote that no access to Greendale Road, Lot 1. We had two. There was a proposal for two access points that are fairly close together. This corner lot already has one here, so we were looking to possibly either to remove that one or combine it with the one adjacent to it for safety reasons. And then denote no access to Greendale Road. When this gets developed, we don't want to have a proposed access point right out here to the new Greendale Road because they'll have enough in through this whole area for the retail shopping. With that, staff is able to recommend approval. All right. Very well. Any questions? Any questions? All right. Thank you. Tony? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, for the record, I'm Tony Barrett. I have Lois Wright with me, the owner of the property, her son, Bobby Downing, and Joyce, of course, with my offices here. We're in agreement with the conditions and are fine with adjusting the corner lots there to eliminate one of the accesses on Cielo Vista Road. If someone can give me a pronunciation of that, I'll make note of that. But we're in agreement with the conditions and ask for approval. All right. Very well. Any questions? No? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience? All right. Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the commission for a motion. Carla? Move approval of DP 2013-53 Greendale Hills with the 13 conditions outlined by staff. I second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Frank? Yes. Would staff or somebody explain to me what number 12 is? Can you tell me on this sheet right here what number 12 is? I can read it, but I can't make it jive in my head. That is the condition that I believe Ms. Galton-Tony both mentioned about combining the two access points on Cielo Vista into one. Okay, so you remove one and combine it with the other. Right. That condition would allow either the bank to have only one access to the other street or for them to be combined into one. Well, that just went over my head. I'm sorry. Thank you. All right. Very well. Are we ready to vote? Yes, sir. All right. Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Again, members of the Commission, good afternoon. This next item appears on page 6 of your agenda. It's item I, DP 2013-55. This is a proposal for a final development plan for the Chenault subdivision, Lot 3A, located at 151 West Zandale Court. This is in an area of the community most everyone is familiar with, but this property may not be. So I'd like to start off with an aerial photo just to orient the commission members to exactly where this lot is. West Zandell Court is a short street that is served by the signalized intersection of Nicholasville Road and Zandell Drive, which extends off the photo in this direction, heading on the west side of Nicholasville Road. It's a very short street with a cul-de-sac. There's a fast food restaurant on one corner, a branch bank on this corner. This is the Ethan Allen Furniture Store, and the Continental Towers are located in this vicinity on Nicholasville Road. The subject property is this lot here, which is on the far right end of the cul-de-sac that exists, and it is proposed for redevelopment. This formerly was an athletic club, but has not been used for some time. The building has very recently been demolished. In fact, there was site work going on on the site earlier today. In looking at another direction of the property, again, we have Zandell Court here. The subject property is this lot here. There is an extensive tree line and screening between the adjacent subdivision, which is just beyond the rear line of the property. but also there is access from a service road around the furniture store, and this access easement is part of the development plan. I would ask you to note the location of this truck right here in the photo as I present the development plan to you. Again, the existing building we saw in the photo is on this end of the property, and that building is being removed, And what is proposed is a new building in its place. Let's see the total number of square feet. About 1,100 square feet in total. Pardon me, 1,200 square feet in total. Most of which would be retail use. However, a very large restaurant on this end of the property, including an 880-square-foot canopy outdoor seating area at the front, would be accessed off the cul-de-sac very near the existing location. The furniture store we saw in the photo is here, the branch bank here, and they both have a connection to an access easement along this edge of the subject property, which is proposed to be enhanced with additional parking, 19 parking spaces here. The remainder of the site will also have off-street parking for the retail and restaurant uses. The overage in the minimum parking is, in essence, the new parking that will be provided along the access easement here, these 19 spaces. The issues from the subdivision committee regarded the idea of deliveries and truck traffic through the site. The recommendation of the subdivision committee is for approval of this plan, as it was from the staff and the technical committee that reviewed it the week prior to that. The first eight conditions listed on your agenda and on the revised handout from the staff, which is shown on the gray sheet of paper in your packet, are general urban county government sign-offs from different divisions, addressing office, traffic engineering, engineering, waste management, division of fire, environmental quality, and so forth. Conditions 9, 10, and 11 are typical cleanup types of conditions to denote the record plat designation on the plan, to revise a note, and to consolidate the notes about tree protection and existing trees to the urban forester's approval. Conditions 12 and 13, as you see on the revised staff recommendation, deal with the two discussion items that came forth from the subdivision committee meeting last week. I should point out this is a revised plan. It is very similar to the one the subdivision committee saw last week, but there are a few slight revisions to the plan. Condition number 12 involves the proposed drive-through facility for the restaurant here. This is proposed as a 20-foot drive aisle, as is this area here. In talking with traffic engineering staff, both planning and traffic engineering are somewhat concerned about vehicle stacking for a drive-through window here. The ordinance requires at least five vehicles have room provided for them to stack. And there would still be room for maneuvering at 20 feet here, but you can see if you begin to stack very many cars at this location, you have a congested situation. One means that that may be able to be revised. Perhaps could include things like cutting off a small corner of this building, perhaps relocating these a little further away. There are a number of ways that that plan could be revised to better address that. Of course, a slight widening to the drive aisle. We think that there is a revision necessary to the plan to better address the drive-through facility that is proposed. Of course, someone going through that would have to go around the building, order, and then pick up their purchase at that location. Number 13, to resolve truck delivery traffic. I believe this was mentioned last week at your subdivision committee meeting, that there is not sufficient room on the site to get a large truck through the back of this building and out the site back to the cul-de-sac. If you recall the photo where I asked you to review the location of the truck that was about right here, that is what I would call a smaller semi-truck, and the applicant has provided information to planning to show where that type of vehicle can maneuver through the site and around the building, again, with the possible exception of this location here where we also have the drive-through issue. The larger trucks, however, would not be able to maneuver around this building in a counterclockwise fashion. However, the staff believes that it may be possible for the same trucks that are delivering to the furniture store to also be able to utilize this same movement for deliveries to these buildings. They would not obviously be adjacent to the building. and one thing that Mr. Carter and I have discussed very briefly is the possibility of a ramp that could suffice that. But there may be an ability to use this existing movement for the very largest of trucks that might serve this building. Those are ways that we think these could be revised or resolved in the approval of this plan. So that leads to the staff's revision to condition number 12 and condition number 13 that appear on the gray sheets before you. Staff is still recommending approval of this plan with those changes that I've outlined. Before you hear from the applicant, I'd be glad to address any questions from the Commission about our revision to the recommendation before you today. No questions? All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. I have reviewed the staff recommendation, and we are in agreement with the revised conditions. All right. Very good. Any questions of the applicant? All right. Let's move it. Move approval of DP 2013-55, Chenault subdivision, Lot 3A, with the 13 conditions outlined by staff. All right. We have a motion for approval and a second. All in favor, vote when you can. Do you want us to do a manual vote? All right. Everybody in favor, raise your right hand. Opposed? Like sign. What technology do you want? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. We have an army here. Hi. Before I get started, there are two letters that we got in opposition to this cell tower request that I'd like to circulate with you. This is on page 7 of your agenda, and it's item A, under Commission Items. This is an application made by Crown Castle and Global Signal Acquisitions 4, LLC, to replace an existing 123-foot monopole tower with a 180-foot monopole tower. It's 180 feet with a 5-foot lightning arrestor. I know it said in the staff report last week that I sent you it was 175 with a 5-foot lightning arrestor, but it's 180 with a 5-foot lightning arrestor. And we are covered in the legal ed because it did say 180-foot towers, so we're okay there. In 1998, the Public Service Commission approved a 100-foot tower for this location. That tower was constructed in 1999. And then in 2003, the height was increased to 123 feet, and it was approved by the Planning Commission. This application is to allow for better service and more service in the area, and that application in 2003 was for the same reason. It was inadequate service in the area. The property is located at 361 Duke Road, and we have property is located by here. This is Duke Road, Cooper Drive, Romney Road, and then Providence Road is up to the north of here. The property is in B1, and it's in the heart of Chevy Chase, basically. It's behind the Kroger Romney store right here. This is their parking lot. And then the Duke Road Post Office is right next door. And if you could put the next one up, Bill, please. The existing tower is about five feet from the property line, the northern property line. This is Kroger's parking lot right here. Here's the property line. There is the existing tower right here. This is the equipment area right there. and then Kroger extends around this way. This, again, is the post office property. And then if you could put the next one up, that will show where the proposed tower is going to be. It will be a little bit more centered along the back of the building. It will be about 25 feet into the property as opposed to the 5 feet that it is right now. Crown Castle owns this property, and they lease the front portion of it for office use, and then the remainder of the building is used for equipment storage for the existing tower and the carriers that are there now. There's also an outside equipment area that was expanded in 2003. It was originally 170 square feet. It was expanded to 598 square feet, and now it will be expanded to a little bit over 2,100 square feet for the additional carriers. It will take up almost the entire rear of the property. It would be this space right there. and then there will be two parking spaces right there. The tower, the new tower, will be the same type and the same construction materials. It will be a steel monopole just as this one is now. The difference will be the diameter of the tower, the height of the tower, and the type of antenna that will be used. And, Bill, if you could put the next one up, please. Right now it has flush mount antennas, which are more similar to this right here, canister type. and they're proposing to do the regular, I guess they call them bird's nest kind of antennas. The flush mount antennas were required at the lower height because it's in the middle of a residential area and it was done for aesthetic purposes. At the higher tower height, then it's going to be the basket ones because the flush mount antennas apparently do not allow adequate transmission and reception. They're not as good at that as the other antenna are. So that's why they're proposing that, basically. And the nearest residential zone, because this is in the middle of a residential zone, but the nearest residential zone and use is at least 100 feet away from the tower location across Duke Road. Duke Road has R3 zoning along the western side, and then it's the B1 zoning on the eastern side. They're asking for two variances, one to the landscaping requirement and one to the height-to-yard ratio. And with regard to the landscape variance, if you could put up the aerial photo bill, please. There's not enough space to accommodate the regular landscape requirement around the equipment area. Generally, what's required is an 8-foot fence around the equipment area, and then on the outside of that, a 5-foot easement that's to contain one tree per 40 linear feet plus a 6-foot hedge. And there just isn't enough room. The parking lot is right there along the edge. There is landscaping right here, but there is no room right there, and there is no room along this property right here to do any additional landscaping. So what they're asking to do is to allow the existing plant material that's between them and the Kroger parking lot to suffice. And then they are also proposing to do a chain-link fence with ivy on it around the other sides. and they would like to waive the landscaping requirement as it's stated in Article 25. It won't strictly comply with the requirement, but it will be better than what's existing, and it will also be more than what was there originally. What's there now is more than what was there originally, and what they're proposing will be more than what's there now. And it will make the property less nonconforming. And although this doesn't have anything to do with the actual cell tower application, They're proposing to landscape these two little grass spaces up between the sidewalk and the parking lot, and that will also help to make the property less nonconforming. With regard to the height-to-yard ratio, because the property is B1, it's got a 3 to 1 height-to-yard ratio required by Article 25. That has never been met even when the tower was at 100 feet. The property is nonconforming, or the tower is nonconforming with regard to the spacing. There was no requirement when that tower was originally approved. That didn't come into play until the year 2000 when we created Article 25, so there weren't any height to yard ratio requirements, any landscaping requirements when the original tower was put in. So it's never really met the requirement that we have now. Now, when the height was increased by the Planning Commission in 2003, that height-to-yard ratio was waived, as was the landscaping requirement, and they did agree to put more landscaping in, but it still didn't meet what was required. We see both of these variances as justified. There's nowhere on the property where the tower can be placed that it would meet all the setback requirements, and there is not enough room for any landscaping, any additional landscaping. There's no available property in the area that would accommodate a tower and meet all the setback requirements. And because the service in the area is inadequate and because the tower already exists on this property, it's more logical and economically feasible to increase the height of the tower and allow co-location, and that will reduce the need to put other towers in the area. And this basically is the only tower in the immediate vicinity. There's an antenna, I think, on a light pole over at UK's Commonwealth Stadium, and there is an antenna on the utility pole in Monta Vesta Park. And those are the only three areas or only three locations that we have cell towers in the area. And so because the service is inadequate and because these are the only three spots that they have cell towers, we agree with the applicant that this would make more sense to increase the height of this tower. and it will allow for enhanced 911 service and that way it will be consistent with a comprehensive plan objective of increasing necessary and public and private services in places where they're inadequate. And in spite of its size, it will also help to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood, believe it or not. I mean, it sounds kind of funny, but if you don't put more towers up around the neighborhood, then that's going to help to protect the neighborhood we have 11 findings with regard to its compliance with article 25 it's generally compliant with article 25 it does comply with comprehensive plan goals and objectives the 11 findings are contained on pages two and three of the staff report and they form the basis of our recommendation of approval and although the application doesn't meet the yard requirements on the three sides and it can't meet the landscaping requirements the situation was pre-existing and it does comply generally with the comprehensive plan and generally with Article 25. The tower's been there since 1999. It's never met the current requirements because they didn't exist at the time the original construction was done, and it's more logical to do one taller tower than to have several other ones around the neighborhood. We have two conditions. Should there be a need to replace any of the existing trees, they be replaced in kind or with a compatible tree species, and that will be determined as appropriate by the urban forester. And then the second one is that a temporary wood fence be installed to screen the equipment area until the ivy is established, and it should be at such a height as to screen the equipment. It can be either interior or exterior to the channeling fence, whichever is easier and more practical for them to do because it is only temporary. And it will be easier to accomplish, and then that would be done once the tower is constructed and the equipment cabinets are all put in and everything. So if you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to try to answer them. We have an army of people here. Mr. Chris King, another Mr. Chris King, is here representing Crown Castle and then several people from the industry. So if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Mr. Wilson, I'm going to make an assumption here that by going up a few more feet, that you're still within the requirements of the FAA in regards to lighting. Yeah, it's not going to be tall enough to require any lighting. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Would any of you all like to comment? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris King. I'm an attorney. I represent Crown Communication, who is the applicant in this case. But I'm also here to help present some information from Verizon Wireless. With me today, I'd like to introduce Luke Morgan. He's an attorney here in Lexington for Verizon. He works at McBrayer McGinnis, Leslie, and Kirkland. Also from Verizon is Amy Harper. She has come all the way down here. She is a manager of network real estate for this region. With Crown Communication, I have Curtis Barman, who is the project manager for this site, and also Cynthia Schaefer, who is a real estate specialist for this area. In answering technical questions that may come up about radio frequency and engineering on this specific site, I have Mr. Daniel Hatchet, who is Assistant Performance Engineer for Verizon in Lexington. So with that being the introductions, I will try to be brief, But I do think there's at least a certain amount of information that you all need to have to fully consider this application. First, a little bit of the history beyond what staff has given. This tower was constructed in 1999 pursuant to the PSC approval in 1998 by Bell South at the time owned this tower. Subsequent to that is when Crown Castle acquired the tower itself, and it owned the tower at the time it was extended in 2003 to accommodate an additional wireless carrier. They purchased the entire parcel that it sets on at 510 Duke Road about a year ago in June of 2012, if I remember correctly. Currently, the existing tower is home to four carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Cricket Communications. Verizon is not on that site. Unfortunately, that tower as it was designed has maxed out. It can't go any taller. It's not structurally sufficient to be extended height-wise or have any other antennas put on it. So that's what really is bringing us here today. Verizon is looking in this area because they have a need, and that need really for all the carriers, as we've seen over the last couple of years, is driven by data. Most of us now have iPhones or Blackberries, and we're using a lot more data, and that's happening across the country. And our carriers are finding that now people use it more for data, texting, e-mails, maps, GPSs, than they even do for voices. There was some speculation for a number of years beginning in, I guess, 2004, 2005. when would it happen that we were using our phones more for internet connection data transfer than we are for actually talking? And it happened. It happened, this is kind of a general graph, but it happened in September of 2011. The green and red are our data usages and the blue is our voice, and we surpassed that almost two years ago. So data keeps increasing. People keep using this for everyday things, again, from checking e-mail to E911, shopping, things like that. Well, to address that, the technology has improved, too. And for a long time, you may have heard of 3G phones, third-generation data. And that was pretty fast. Well, now fourth-generation has rolled out, 4G phones is what they're called, and they're even faster. Well, the technologies, the antenna, the radio systems that push those two types of data transfers are different. Not necessarily incompatible, but they're different. They require different antennas, different frequencies, and things like that. And so it requires a change in our systems, in the telecommunications antennas. Their backbones are transmitters and things like that. So that's what is causing this drive. Now, Verizon has had 3G in the area, but they've recently rolled their 4G out in the Lexington, Kentucky market. 4G gives us a lot more capacity, but also means we have a lot more users that are migrating that now. People are trading in their old 3G phones, getting 4G phones, so the demand for 4G service is greater. And what Verizon found was that in the Romney Road area, they were starting to get trouble tickets, I think is what they call them. But they're basically customer complaints that I'm not able to connect or my connection isn't fast enough or it drops unexpectedly, things like that. So when those things happen, Verizon goes and they take a look at their system and find out what's causing that. In this case, they did a plot. Now, green is good. Green is best. Blue is good. And red is marginal. I'll let the engineer talk about specific decibels and stuff. But as I understand it, green means you can sit in the basement of your house and you can get a signal and have no problems. Blue means it's pretty good. You probably can't go in the basement, but you can be in the upstairs floor probably anywhere you want it. Red, you probably need to be on your front porch. And white means there's really no coverage at all. It's spotty at best. So this is what we find, and I'll try to figure out this little laser here. The site on Duke Road is pointed out here. As Steph mentioned, there is a site here near the Commonwealth Stadium. There's another small site on a pole here. But in the Romney Road area, you've got good and moderate, but a real problem is down in here in the Lakeview, and I think I'm getting that right, the Lakeview neighborhood area. Because of the terrain, the terrain drops off to the south and the east, as well as other factors, I'm sure, they're not getting a signal in there. So they have insufficient coverage in that area, and they would like to have better coverage in the Romney Road, Duke, Chevy Chase area too. As you can see, in a lot of that area, it's red. It's just moderate. You might not get really good coverage anywhere in your house. An additional objective was, although they have a site here on Commonwealth Stadium, it's actually on a light stanchion, I believe, they've got pretty good coverage what they found was during football season during game days a lot of the times they didn't have the capacity in other words your phone might have good bars on it you know several four bars or however yours shows but people were having trouble getting their connections their data connections were really slow that has to do with capacity that we may have a signal but we don't have enough room on our state on our radio station on our transmitter to get all that information out to people so they like a show this this was a prepared by the by I think mr. Hatcher prepared this but it shows the 2012 last year's football season and you see if the spikes those correlate to the weekends that there were home games at Commonwealth Stadium and so you see a huge in uptick in volume during that and what I think you ought to take note of here is red is the number of call attempts. That's the number of times a phone tried to get a connection to the tower. In the blue right below that, that's the number of calls that were actually connected. So you're seeing a discrepancy there that on those days of peak usage, a lot of the attempts aren't actually getting through to the tower. That calls, this is data throughput and you can just skyrockets from where are we at 250,000 kilobits per second, maybe standard to on a game day we're at 1.3 million. So it really jumps up. I show you that to help kind of give you an idea of the usage that goes on. Well, the Romney Road site that we're talking about today, if constructed, would be able to reach in. It's about one mile, almost one mile exactly to the 50-yard line of stadium. it would be able to reach into the Commonwealth Stadium area and help offload some of that traffic on game days. So not only will it help the folks around Commonwealth Stadium on game days, but those people that currently have coverage in the Romney Road area for G coverage, it's going to help them with their capacity and ability to connect quickly and so on. Another objective that Verizon has for this is in this area here is the COSARES hospital. It's got pretty good coverage here, but we're finding that hospitals, a lot of the medical staff and hospitals are starting to use PDAs, tablets, a lot more that connect wirelessly to push data back and forth. So that's going to be an area that as the use continues to grow, it's been seen that hospitals tend to use a lot of data. And so we want to be able to offload some help with the capacity in that area in the future as it may arise. So when presented with this situation and knowing their objectives, they issued a search ring. Verizon engineers looked out and they said, okay, where do we need to put a site that would cover all these things for us the best? And so this is a search ring that they came up with. And you'll note that the Duke Road falls within the search ring almost just to the west of it. So we're not dead center, but we're pretty close. The problem is that there weren't any other structures in that search ring that were tall enough or suitable for co-location. and the Duke Road tower wasn't tall enough or strong enough to be extended. So that brings us here today. We'd like to replace the tower that currently has four carriers on it. We want to add a fifth carrier to it, make it higher so we can do one, I like to call it a single-site solution. We can keep this one site and do a lot more things with it rather than maybe having to break it down into three or four sites in this area. We think it's suitable because this is the slide we saw before. It allows Verizon to meet their coverage objectives. This is currently 4G. What you see is proposed. It helps. You can see where it fills in, particularly in the Lakeview area, that white area has gone away. The red area has reduced to blue, and there's a lot of green in Romney Road. That's good coverage. But it will also allow us, again, to reach into the Commonwealth Stadium area, reach into the hospital areas, and help offload some of that data traffic there. In addition to just Verizon's needs by extending this tower, it will open up two more spaces on that end tower, so we can put two additional antennas for future providers that may need them or current providers that need another set of antennas in the area. So we're going to add one for Verizon, and we're still going to have two left over. So we think it will help with future co-locations as well. And finally, any of the existing customers that are on Duke Road, such as AT&T or Sprint, they're going to be rolling out their higher data. speeds too if they haven't already and they're going to be looking for sites to do exactly the same thing that Verizon is trying to accomplish and we think that this site since they're there now if we can get them to the height they need to be there they'll won't have to build any new structures also we think that this this proposal agrees well with the comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan does recognize that telecommunications play an important role in the economic development quality of life in Lexington and it does encourage universal access but it seeks to balance that with aesthetic concerns. It encourages co-location, which is what we're trying to do here. It's important to remember, although this is a tower application, even though it's a new tower, it's not an additional tower. We're taking one down, putting one up, essentially in the same place. So we think it meets the letter and the spirit of the comprehensive plan, which also suggests that these business zones be used where possible as opposed to residential and what we found and i couldn't put this on the slide but you are probably intimately familiar with it what i found was is we have a small island on this duke road romney road area we have a very small island of b zone surrounded by our zone so the comprehensive plan encourages just to put it in the B zone is what we're trying to do. The alternative would be if we don't get this site, they may have to put two or three other sites in different areas or another site, and that's more than likely going to end up in an R zone. We've also checked into the effect that it might have on the neighborhood, and we've consulted twice, actually, with the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association. We don't think they have any significant negative impact on property values, and when we met with the folks at Chevy Chase I think we got a lot of good feedback we met with them before the application as a result of the first meeting we made some changes that in the application you see before you tonight we first this photo sim of the current tower it's an actual photo of this current tower it's on the left proposed towers on the right looking at it from Duke Road right in front of the Pilates place right in front of the drive and When we met with the Chevy Chase leadership, it just comes down to we can't hide a 180-foot tower. But there's a few things we can do. We can try to make it look a little neater, a little less obtrusive. So after talking to them, we can run all the cabling that is going to the antennas. That can be run inside the monopole. That's something that can't be done with the current tower. So right now that current tower has a bunch of cables running up the outside. It's necessary, but I believe putting them on the inside of the monopole will give it a neater appearance for the neighborhood. And we had originally shown the first photo simulation, and we had AT&T and Cricut. They were all at their current levels. And so we had kind of a gap between where Verizon antenna needs to be at 175 feet. And they said, well, that kind of looks bad. can we can we get them all evened out now i haven't talked to at&t or cricket but uh mr curtis barman may be able to speak to that but we can probably get them to move up to even that out to make it look a little little more uniform uh but there there are a this is a couple other photo sims this is from uh christ church or christ the king church uh left again Whoops, wrong button. Left, this is the existing monopole right there off in the distance. The photo simulation, that would be kind of what it looks like with the new tower. And this is just down Romney Road a bit, the same situation. So there's limited things we can do to make the tower itself look better, but there's a lot we can do to help the view from ground. The applicant, because it owns the entire parcel, So we've got some flexibility, and we were able to do some things that we wouldn't normally be able to do in these situations. And it is worth noting, I wanted to show you here, staff talked about it, but we have a commercial building here facing Duke Grove. Kroger's is just here. It's kind of behind two commercial buildings. It's kind of tucked away. It's not right up in the front of everything, which will allow us to shield a lot of the base of the tower. A lot of the base tower will be seen from the streets on either side. We would talk right now there's currently a six-foot security fence there. Eight foot is what we propose to put in. It will be higher. It will do a better job of shielding from view any of the equipment that may be there. Also shield the base of the tower, particularly from the Kroger parking lot, which is just to the north here. It's elevated. It's probably two, three feet higher than the rest of the property. So right now you're looking down into that compound. We put two more feet of height on that fence, and we're not going to be looking down into it as much. The ivy-covered chain-link fence is proposed around here, and that was really another one that was in response to talking to folks at Chevy Chase. It's an established neighborhood. There's buildings there with ivy on them. Ivy would look good. I don't know of another cell tower that has ivy covering its base, or I'd show you a picture of it. But I don't know that we could do it unless we owned this property. And since Crown owns the entire parcel, they've got some flexibility that they can do that. So that's why that was proposed. It's merely for aesthetic reasons. We think it does add some benefits to it. If there were any graffiti problems in the area, which I haven't seen, but if there were, it discourages that and also kind of helps keep things a little greener and otherwise, as you can see, asphalt surroundings. Where am I at here? Okay. This is what the existing compound looks like. A couple other things that we've agreed to do is right now you see an elevated platform. It's about 12 feet high, on which is mounted some existing radio equipment that serves the tower. That's going to come down. We're taking that down so it's no longer projecting above the fences. The equipment on there is going inside the building. Again, some more flexibility because Crown owns this. They can put some of the equipment inside. So that's going to come down. It's going to help reduce the visual impact. And also expanding the tower, or excuse me, expanding the compound out to the east and to the south and putting a fence around. That's going to help us screen everything. Right now the existing compound just screens. There's power meters that are out and, of course, this equipment shelter here. But we'll be able to screen that by extending the compound. As staff noted, we'll resurface and restrike this lot here, replace the current asphalt bumpers with concrete. And we left that as proposed landscape. We'll landscape it. I don't have a specific planning proposed. One of the cautions that the folks from Chevy Chase made was don't put anything in there. The dogs are going to tear up. So we're open to suggestions, but that's being dedicated to landscaping. We do have the two waivers needed. Staff talked about we just don't have the room here. We haven't ever had the room to put landscaping in. Just ask for that to continue the way it is. We think the ivy will offset that, help alleviate some of the problems caused or might be caused by having less of a landscape buffer. We do concur with staff the conditions that are proposed by staff. I think they're reasonable and be willing to abide by those. One, I know Mr. Rick Queen from the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association was here. I think he had to leave, but I wanted to thank them publicly because they really did add a lot to that. They spent a lot of time with us on two different occasions. I want to thank them. I want to thank everyone who came down here and appreciate you all listening to me after such a long hearing as today. That finishes my presentation. Any questions for me or any of the folks here, please feel free. Mr. Berkeley. I'm just wondering, Verizon was mentioned a lot, and I understand they're not on the tower now. is this about adding carriers or is it also about improving the service for the existing carriers that are there? That's my first question. And then my second question is you said that there's room for basically seven, the way I understand it with this proposed poll. you don't know who those other two are going to be. I guess the height of the tower, is it higher because you're allowing for two additional people to maybe come on, or does it need to be that high for some other reason? I'll address the first question. Verizon, you're correct, is not on the tower. They need it for coverage. It's not to improve service. They need it for 4G coverage. They're not there now. They need to be there. I hope that was the answer to the first question correctly or sufficiently. The second question is the height. When they did their search ring, when they did their check, they decided that to do all these things with a single site, we need to be at 175 feet above ground level. To answer the question, could it be lower? yeah, they could put their antennas lower, but it's probably going to require another site to meet those objectives, particularly to the south and the east. So to do it with one site, 175 is what they needed. By going that high, though, we have room to add two more carriers on this site in the future. Does that answer the question? Kind of. I'll stick with the height part right now, and then I won't follow back on the other. Is the height necessary to accommodate seven carriers potentially, or can it accommodate the desired five carriers at a lower height and still offer the same service? That's the one question. Okay. Okay, and we can have the systems engineer speak to that, but it cannot. Their antennas, Verizon antennas, need to be at 175 feet, which is why the tower is so high, to do all of the things it's trying to do to provide that coverage, provide that capacity offload with one site. Now, they might be able to put their antennas at a lower elevation, but that will require them to have another site located somewhere else in the area to accomplish the same thing. Okay, and then the question about the existing carriers that are there as far as service upgrades or whatever, is that a part of this as well? Because I live in that area, and I know what the coverage is, at least for my carrier, and I can stand in my house and not even be able to use my phone. So I'm sure that other people probably experience that same thing. So that's why I'm asking the question, is this also going to elevate the existing carrier's coverage? Okay. Let me try to answer that. And Mr. Barman, if you or Cindy, if I say something wrong, stand up and tell me. I don't know that there are official applications to move their antennas higher for AT&T or Cricut. I don't know that that's actually been filed yet with Crown. But I think it's a pretty good bet that if they can get their new antennas up higher to reach into their customers in that area, they're going to want to do it. Is that correct? We haven't actually received it. I don't want to tell you that this application, it doesn't include those because it doesn't. So I don't want to tell you that it is, but we're very confident that they're going to go up there. Their interest is there. I can't tell you now we have an official commitment that AT&T is going to want to go up to this level because we don't have one. But we think it's going to happen. Anyone else? Did anyone else of your group need to speak? Mr. Morgan? Hi, my name is Curtis Barman. I'm a project manager with Crown Castle. Just to piggyback a little bit on Chris's comment, while I represent a certain geographic area for Crown and certain customers, I do hear a lot of the footsteps in our office. I do know that T-Mobile, who's on this tower now, has a pending application in for this site, and they've already expressed interest to us at a higher height on the tower. And it's not just the additional height they gain. For those that I realize a lot of you probably haven't seen this tower physically, but just the physical restraints of it being a, I think it's probably an 18 to 22-inch diameter tower, It's very restrictive, and that's why there's the flush-mounted antennas. All of the carriers that are there now, I would think, would be very interested in moving up higher on the tower just for a larger footprint that they can cover with their RF objectives. And that additional meaty tower will give them the additional capacity to grow their antennas with what they would like to do at the site. I've worked for Crown for 13 years now. I've seen this tower from the point where it was built, and I have seen numerous crown applications that come in. We want to do this. We want to do that. We want to go higher. Can we add these antennas on it? And I've seen, I'd say, probably 75% to 80% of the applications canceled because the physical limitations of the tower don't allow them to do what they need to. One of the photos I think Chris showed in there with the elevated platform that supports cricket there, I was involved with that back in 2007. It's just a small parcel of land, and the only way we could do to get them on that was to go up and to modify that tower. Most of these monopult towers you look at, well, they're all round. But if you go to this one, it's triangular. It has been modified and modified and modified with all the coax on the outside because there's no room on the inside. It's just, it is physically ugly right now. And a comment that Chris made earlier, we can't make a 180-foot tower any less visually intrusive than what the 120 is now. But we can do a lot of things to make it look a lot better than what it is, in addition to what's going up vertically, but along the ground area with the compound. But in answering your question, Mr. Berkley, a higher tower, I would highly suspect that our other customers on the tower would be very interested in moving their existing antenna rates up to get a better RF platform for their coverage objective. All right. Very well. That concludes your – That concludes my presentation. All right. Well, let's turn it over to the Commission and see what they want to do about it. Okay. Mr. Wilson. If it's agreeable with you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move or make a motion. I move that we approve the application to construct a 180-foot monotower, and ask the CT 2013-1 to replace the existing tower at 361 Duke Road. All right. Very well. I have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. It says second. Okay. The variances, are they included in this? So that motion will cover the variances. Yes, sir. Yes, I would just say refer to the staff report. Okay. Okay. Are you referring to the staff report? Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, it's really your call. Sometimes you separate them, sometimes you don't. But if you want me to, I do it exactly the way you want me to. I don't want to get into parliamentary argument with you right now. The motion should say, for reasons provided by staff. Everybody vote. That motion carries. So none of our cell phones will get cut off. All right, we've got one other item to do, appointment of nominating committee for commission officers. And I have those names. It's not my appointment. It's the chairman's. And they are Frank Penn, Will Berkley, and Karen Mundy. Mr. Chairman, should the records show that they volunteered as opposed to being appointed because the chairman should not appoint a nominating committee by parliamentary procedure? Well, it says right on B, appointment of a nominating committee for commissioned officers. Okay. Are you objecting to any of those? That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm simply suggesting. Do you all volunteer? Do you accept? Okay. All right, so that doesn't need a motion. I want to be sure I need that pay raise. That doesn't need a motion. Since it says the commission shall appoint, I think it would be wise for the commission to go ahead and vote to accept that nominating committee. All right, so let's have a motion. I move that we accept the volunteers listed by the chair. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. When do you need to report? Next week? Next week? I'm sure we got on. I believe the bylaws specify that you all adopted the committee will report at the work session next week. Work session in June. That's where it says. All right. No other business. We stand adjourned. I'm a little bit A little bit faster Can't stop And I can't stop Gotta keep moving on With my mind