# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - September 12, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 12, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3110 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3110?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-09-12 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 22,212 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on September 12, 2013, at 1:34 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting. The Commission considered nine agenda items and took 15 votes during the session. The meeting included three public comments from members of the public. All nine items on the agenda were approved, including: - Masterson Hills, Unit 1-C - Lakeview Industrial Subdivision, Unit 3, Lots 1A & 1B - Kingston Hall, Unit 2 - The Coach House-South Broadway Property - Fayette Mall (AMD #12) - Brookhaven Subdivision (AMD #10) - Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 2012-9 - Tates Creek High School Band Tower - Fayette County Public Schools Elementary School Site ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Bill Wilson, Carla Blanton, and Frank Penn. **Absent:** Patrick Brewer. **Late arrivals:** None. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:13:05] The Commission unanimously approved minutes from the June 27, 2013 and July 25, 2013 meetings. Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Vote: 10-0. **Postponements** Three items were postponed by unanimous vote: - PLAN 2013-99F: Willow Glen, Unit 4 (AMD) postponed to September 26, 2013 [timestamp: 0:14:43]. Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Vote: 10-0. - DP 2013-80: Ellerslie Place, Lots 2 & 2A (AMD) postponed to September 26, 2013 [timestamp: 0:15:48]. Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Vote: 10-0. - DP 2013-74: Glen Creek (Dove Creek) (AMD) postponed to October 10, 2013 [timestamp: 0:16:57]. Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Vote: 10-0. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 0:20:27] The Commission unanimously approved consent agenda items including PLAN 2013-95F, 2013-96F, 2013-97F, 2013-106F, DP 2013-72, and DP 2013-79. Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Vote: 10-0. **Bond Release and Call** [timestamp: 0:22:25] The Commission unanimously approved release and call of bonds dated September 12, 2013. Motion by Ms. Beatty, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Vote: 10-0. **Development Plans and Plats** - PLAN 2013-98F: Masterson Hills, Unit 1-C approved unanimously [timestamp: 0:45:03]. Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Penn. Vote: 10-0. Conditions included addition of cemetery lot and 5-foot side yard setback on adjacent lots. - DP 2013-61: Lakeview Industrial Subdivision, Unit 3, Lots 1A & 1B approved unanimously [timestamp: 0:51:19]. Motion by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Vote: 10-0. - DP 2013-64: Kingston Hall, Unit 2 approved unanimously [timestamp: 1:25:13]. Motion by Mr. Finn, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Vote: 10-0. - DP 2013-71: The Coach House-South Broadway Property approved with split vote [timestamp: 1:48:45]. Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Vote: 9-1, with Ms. Carla Blanton voting against. - DP 2013-73: Fayette Mall (AMD #12) approved unanimously [timestamp: 2:23:32]. Motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Vote: 10-0. - DP 2013-19: Brookhaven Subdivision (AMD #10) approved unanimously [timestamp: 2:28:47]. Motion by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Vote: 10-0. **Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment** ZOTA 2012-9 approved unanimously [timestamp: 2:48:47]. Motion by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Vote: 10-0. Amendment addressed rehabilitation homes and tattoo parlors. **Comprehensive Plan Compliance** - PFR 2013-8: Tates Creek High School band tower request recognized as compliant with comprehensive plan [timestamp: 2:54:20]. Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Vote: 10-0. - PFR 2013-6: Fayette County Public Schools elementary school property purchase approved [timestamp: 3:00:54]. Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Vote: 10-0. ## Public Comment Three speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Dr. Poole** [timestamp: 1:15:54] addressed concerns regarding a buffer with her property in relation to a proposed hospice development. She requested clarification on plans for a solid visual barrier to be installed to protect her horses from view of the development. Dr. Poole also expressed concern about her property being opened up to the parking lot and buildings associated with the project. **Mr. Penn** spoke twice during the public comment period. In his first comment [timestamp: 2:21:51], Mr. Penn raised concerns about bus stop access at Fayette Mall. He expressed doubt that a single bus stop at the front of the facility would be sufficient for such a large location. Mr. Penn suggested the need for a backup plan to establish a second bus stop to improve access for people located in the far corners of the mall. In his second comment [timestamp: 2:44:46], Mr. Penn sought clarification on the balance between public safety and fair housing rights. His question specifically addressed the placement of rehabilitation homes near schools and child care centers. ## Contested Items **Cemetery Lot Inclusion and Setbacks** The applicant and the Commission disagreed over the required 5-foot side yard setback for cemetery lot inclusion. The applicant opposed the setback requirement, arguing that it would reduce the overall lot size. However, staff and the Commission emphasized the importance of the setback to prevent a canyon-like appearance and to protect the cemetery. The Commission ultimately approved the proposal with the 5-foot setback in place. **Buffer with Poole Property** Dr. Poole raised concerns about the proposed hospice development's visual impact on her adjacent property. Specifically, she expressed concern about the visual exposure of her horses to the development and requested that a solid visual barrier be installed. The Commission agreed with her concern and added a condition to the approval requiring a solid visual barrier between the hospice development and the Poole property. **Bus Stop at Fayette Mall** Mr. Penn questioned whether a single bus stop would be adequate for the large Fayette Mall facility. He suggested that a second bus stop might be necessary to serve the mall's size and anticipated usage. While the Commission approved the plan as presented with one bus stop, Mr. Penn's concern was noted as a potential issue that may need to be addressed in the future. ## Masterson Hills, Unit 1-C **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2013-98F The Planning Commission discussed the Masterson Hills, Unit 1-C development proposal [timestamp: 0:21:49]. Key participants in the discussion included Mr. Martin, Rory Kahly, Mr. Penn, and Mr. Drake. **Issues Discussed** Two primary matters were addressed during the review: - **Cemetery lot inclusion:** The Commission discussed the inclusion of a cemetery lot on the plat for the development. - **Setback and fence height requirements:** The Commission considered proposed design standards, specifically a 5-foot side yard setback and a 4-foot fence height restriction. These requirements were intended to prevent a canyon-like appearance in the development. **Applicant Concerns** The applicant opposed the increased side yard setback requirement, arguing that the 5-foot setback would reduce the usable size of individual lots in the development. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the plan with a requirement for a 5-foot side yard setback. The approval incorporated the design standards intended to maintain the visual character of the development. ## Lakeview Industrial Subdivision, Unit 3, Lots 1A & 1B **Identifier:** DP 2013-61 The Commission reviewed a revised development plan for Lakeview Industrial Subdivision, Unit 3, Lots 1A & 1B. [timestamp: 0:46:42] **Presentation and Key Points** The revised plan incorporated improvements to site circulation and updated stormwater management systems. Staff recommended approval of the plan subject to revised conditions. **Key Speakers** - Mr. Martin - Kyle Crater **Outcome** The Commission approved the development plan. ## Kingston Hall, Unit 2 **Identifier:** DP 2013-64 The Commission discussed a hospice development proposal during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:51:49]. Key speakers included Mr. Martin, Richard Murphy, Dr. Poole, and Mr. Selle. **Discussion Topics** The Commission examined several aspects of the proposed development: - Access points to the facility - Buffer requirements between the hospice and adjacent properties - Construction of a cul-de-sac as part of the site plan **Applicant Commitments** The applicant made the following agreements to address Commission concerns: - Installation of a solid visual barrier - Implementation of phased construction to manage impacts during development **Outcome** The Commission approved the plan with revised conditions. The approval reflected the applicant's willingness to incorporate the requested modifications regarding site design, visual screening, and construction sequencing. ## The Coach House-South Broadway Property **Project Identifier:** DP 2013-71 The Commission discussed the development proposal for The Coach House-South Broadway Property [timestamp: 1:26:20]. Key participants in the discussion included Mr. Martin, Rob Hefner, Mr. Penn, and Mr. Berkley. **Main Issues Debated** The central point of contention involved access design for the drive-through facility. The Commission debated whether to allow full access or restrict the drive-through to right-in, right-out access only. The applicant, represented by Rob Hefner, argued in favor of full access to the property. **Concerns Raised** Commission members raised concerns regarding: - Traffic safety implications of the proposed access configuration - Pedestrian access and safety considerations related to the drive-through design **Outcome** The Commission approved the plan with a split vote, indicating that while the proposal received approval, commissioners were divided on the decision. The approval allowed the applicant's preferred full access design for the drive-through to proceed. ## Fayette Mall (AMD #12) **Project Identifier:** DP 2013-73 **Discussion Type:** Redevelopment Plan The Commission discussed Amendment #12 to the Fayette Mall development, focusing on the redevelopment of the Sears space and related site improvements. [timestamp: 1:56:51] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Martin, Jennifer Greer, and Mr. Penn. **Issues Discussed** The Commission addressed three primary concerns: - **Sears Space Redevelopment:** The proposed plans for reusing the Sears retail space - **Pedestrian Access to Transit:** Ensuring adequate pedestrian connectivity and access to transit facilities - **Big Box Design Guidelines Compliance:** Whether the proposal met applicable design standards for large retail structures **Applicant Response** The applicant agreed to make improvements to address Commission concerns, specifically committing to: - Delineate the entrance to improve clarity and wayfinding - Enhance pedestrian access throughout the site **Outcome** The Commission approved the amendment. The plan, as modified by the applicant's commitments, was found to satisfy the requirements for pedestrian access, transit connectivity, and design guideline compliance. ## Brookhaven Subdivision (AMD #10) **Item:** DP 2013-19 **Type:** Discussion **Timestamp:** [2:24:53] The Commission reviewed a proposed amendment to the Brookhaven Subdivision involving a change from retail space to a restaurant use. **Key Participants:** - Mr. Martin - Mr. Ladenberger **Action Taken:** The Commission approved the plan with revised conditions. The approval required the following documentation and compliance measures: - Documentation of water quality approval - Verification of parking compliance **Outcome:** Approved ## Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 2012-9 [timestamp: 2:29:17] The Commission reconsidered regulations governing rehabilitation homes and tattoo parlors under Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 2012-9. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended maintaining rehabilitation homes as principal uses in certain zones while implementing a 500-foot setback requirement from schools. For tattoo parlors, staff recommended allowing them as conditional uses. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Tracy Jones, Mr. Penn, and Ms. Blanton. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amendment. ## Tates Creek High School Band Tower The Planning Commission reviewed a request for a 45-square-foot van tower for the Tates Creek High School band during this agenda item [timestamp: 2:49:56]. **Presentation and Review** Staff presented the proposal and confirmed that the request complied with the comprehensive plan. The van tower was intended to serve the high school band program. **Key Participants** Barb Rackers and Andrew Moore were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the request for the van tower. ## Fayette County Public Schools Elementary School Site The Commission reviewed a proposal for the purchase of a 15-acre property intended for an elementary school. Barb Rackers presented the item to the Commission. Staff confirmed that the proposed site complies with the comprehensive plan. In addition to approving the property purchase, staff recommended that a greenway trail connection be incorporated into the project. The Commission approved the request. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of minutes from June 27, 2013 and July 25, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of PLAN 2013-99F: Willow Glen, Unit 4 (AMD) to September 26, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2013-80: Ellerslie Place, Lots 2 & 2A (AMD) to September 26, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2013-74: Glen Creek (Dove Creek) (AMD) to October 10, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items including PLAN 2013-95F, 2013-96F, 2013-97F, 2013-106F, DP 2013-72, and DP 2013-79 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of release and call of bonds dated September 12, 2013 - **PLAN 2013-98F** — passed (10-0): Approval of Masterson Hills, Unit 1-C with revised conditions including 5-foot side yard setback and cemetery inclusion - **DP 2013-61** — passed (10-0): Approval of Lakeview Industrial Subdivision, Unit 3, Lots 1A & 1B with revised conditions - **DP 2013-64** — passed (10-0): Approval of Kingston Hall, Unit 2 with revised conditions including buffer with Poole property and cul-de-sac phase 2 - **DP 2013-71** — passed (9-1): Approval of The Coach House-South Broadway Property with revised conditions - **DP 2013-73** — passed (10-0): Approval of Fayette Mall (AMD #12) with revised conditions including pedestrian access and big box guidelines - **DP 2013-19** — passed (10-0): Approval of Brookhaven Subdivision (AMD #10) with revised conditions - **ZOTA 2012-9** — passed (10-0): Approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 2012-9 with alternative text for rehabilitation homes and tattoo parlors - **PFR 2013-8** — passed (10-0): Recognition that Tates Creek High School band tower request is in compliance with comprehensive plan - **PFR 2013-6** — passed (10-0): Approval of Fayette County Public Schools property purchase for elementary school with recommendation for greenway trail connection --- ## Full transcript I had some problems, and no one could seem to solve them But you, you, you found an answer So I gave it half a chance to learn a way And learn the terms of love, my baby And all that it has to offer And all that I have I give my home to you All, all my love, baby And all this love is just waiting for you My baby, my sugar And all this love is just waiting for you Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. All this love is waiting for you And all this love is waiting for you My baby And baby, all this love is waiting for you My sugar, my baby And all this time, my love is waiting for you Oh, I love how you make me feel this way My love is getting stronger every day My baby And after all I went and put myself through I found that all I really needed was you My darling As the sun has its place up in the sky I love you so dearly And all the same There's no need to wonder why I need you Please hear me Say you love me, baby Say you love me, darling Cause I really love you, baby Oh, I really love you, darling And maybe all Say you really love me, baby Oh, this love is waiting for you Cause I really love you, baby My baby Oh, I really love you, darling And maybe all Say you really love me, baby Oh, cause I really love you, baby Sure enough when you're not Love me, darling Say, say you love me Oh, I love you Baby, oh, my love Waiting for you My baby Thank you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh It's why we're coming to the face. No, there is even, it seems we wish. Because it's all. Because it's all I can say. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll get started in about one minute. Good afternoon. I think everyone's here. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is September 12th. I'll call this meeting to order. First on the agenda would be approval of minutes. We've got two sets that were emailed to the commission members earlier this week, one of them being June 27th and the other one being July 25th. I'd ask if there are any changes or corrections that's needed at this time. Mr. Chairman, on the June 27th minutes on the Fritz property, I have looked that over twice, and I have not found anywhere where Mr. Lear's statement about out-of-body experience because Mr. Turner showed up to protest the Nicholasville Road doesn't show up anywhere in these minutes. Thank you for noting that. So, if there's no other corrections, I'll entertain a motion. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of June 27th and July 25th, 2013 minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Are there any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Mr. Cayley, good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. On page 2, bottom of that page, item E, plan 2013-99F Willow Glen, unit 4, request a two-week postponement to the September 26th meeting. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, Ms. Plumlee. You have two-week plus an amendment of Plan 2013-99F. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of Plan 2013-99F, Willow Green Unit 4. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? yes please come forward i'm brian hannah with the representing milestone design group of the ellersley place page seven dp2013-80 i'd like to postpone that for two weeks okay thank you anyone in the audience or commission members want to speak to this request? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2013-80. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of DP 2013-80. L is here to replace. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Staff? Mr. Chairman, staff would like to direct your attention to page 5 of your agenda. Item F, DP2013-74, Glen Creek, amended for property located at 1145 and 1156 Appian Crossing Way. Staff has received an email communication from the applicant requesting a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience or a commission member want to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, that would be to the October 10th meeting. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, move postponement one month of DP 2013-74, Glen Creek. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement for one month, DP 2013-74, Glen Creek. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes as well. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll ask Mr. Saleed to move to the consent agenda on a tan sheet that's before the Commission members. I'll ask Mr. Saleed to walk us through that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. about half of the remaining subdivision and development plans on your agenda do qualify for consideration as no discussion items on your consent agenda. The first item that qualifies is at the very bottom of the first page, Plan 2013-95F, an amended final record plat for South Broadway Place, Phase 3, Lot 1, also known as the Carl B. White property. This involves a tract at 1000 Export Street. There are three other plats on your consent agenda. On page 2, item B is the next one, Plan 2013-96F, Hillenmeyer Property, West, and Greendale Hills, Unit 2, involving property at 2801 Sandersville Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item C, Plan 2013-97F, Masterson Hills, Unit 1B, involving property, a portion of 3000 Spur Road. There is one other subdivision plan that has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that appears on the consent agenda. It's page 3, item F, plan 2013-106F, amendment number 2 to the final record plat for South Broadway Place, lot 3, this property having an address of 201 Simpson Avenue. In addition, there are two development plans that are also on your consent agenda. These are also recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 4, item D of your meeting agenda, DP2013-72, a final development plan for Miller-Bird Commercial, Lot 1A, and Oldstown Village, Subdivision, Unit 2, involving property with addresses of 161 Moore Drive and 2699 Regency Road. The final plan on your consent agenda is page 6, item H, DP 2013-79, Interstate Realty Lot 1, an amended final development plan involving property at 833-837 Lane Allen Road, and also including 1910 Garden Springs Drive. Mr. Chairman, at this time, these items can be considered for approval as recommended by your subdivision committee unless a member of the Commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask to remove an item from your consent agenda to allow for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience or any Commission member wish to remove one of these items and have it be heard? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda. Mr. Chair, move approval consent agenda. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of consent agenda as read. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. That will take us to our first item on the agenda, which would be at page 2, item D, plan 2013-98F, Masterson Hills, unit 1C. I believe you have revised staff recommendations on a yellow sheet before you. Sorry, but the Commission members, while they're setting up, we've got a memorandum for the release and call of bonds dated September 12, 2013, that we need to act on. Well, entertain a motion for that. Yes, ma'am. A move that we accept the release and call of bonds dated September 12, 2013. Motion's been made and seconded for the release of and call of bonds dated September 12, 2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Martin, are you ready? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The first item on your agenda is located on page two. This is a final record plat, Item D, Plan 2013-98F Masterson Hills, Unit 1C. This is a record plat that is associated with the 1B that you just approved on your consent agenda. It's located out here on our Tibbs Trail, which intersects with Wigington Point within the development. Here's the preliminary subdivision plan that was approved by this body that gives you a bigger picture as to where it's located. This is the school property with Sandersville Road in this area. You've approved a greenway with townhouses up along the school as well. This is the street system that was approved along with the lotting pattern in that area. Here is Spur Road. And again, Spur Road, Sandersville is up in this location. This is the 1B that you just approved on your consent agenda. The plat that I'm presenting to you now are these lots in this location. It is, as you can see, a final record plat subject to standard sign-offs. several cleanup conditions are do exist on the property there's 35 lots proposed on this record plat that's owned our three they are single family homes and are consistent with the development in the area there are several discussion items and one note of interest that I would like to point out briefly. During the discussion that staff had with the tech committee on the corner lots, it was determined that it was important to have those driveways appropriately spaced off the intersection, and that's the purpose of a condition that you'll see on your plat. Of more concern on this particular plat, and again I'll step over that again to the plat is again corner lots was a concern but the cemetery that is located in this location again you can see it's been highlighted and shown on your preliminary subdivision plan this cemetery actually caused a change in the lighting pattern on a previous plan in this area there had been townhouses proposed it was amended to see what you see before you today. We do have a close-up. If you place that exhibit up. Item 12 on your agenda, and again we passed out a handout, a nice golden rod yellow. Staff is recommending that the cemetery be added to this plat. Furthermore, we believe it's important to denote the cemetery protections that are required by Article 3-7 of the zoning ordinance. This cemetery was identified quite a few years ago, and it was prior to the full development of those protections. What staff has done when faced with these situations, we have asked that cemeteries be protected with the ones that we have highlighted for you that require fencing, landscaping, access, a 50-foot buffer, which you can see on the exhibit on the screen, which they have delineated on this plan. Staff is recommending that that be done prior to certification of this particular plat. The second concern that staff had is item 13, condition 13. And this arose due to our concern with the cemetery as well. As you can see on the overhead, there is a 10-foot access that is proposed, which is required by the ordinance, to this lot, the cemetery lot. Staff was concerned about the setbacks for the housing along this lot. We did not want to create a canyon sort of look or feel to that access. So we are proposing that a 5- to 8-foot side yard setback, as well as a 4-foot fence height restriction, be placed on those two lots, 107 and 108. And we do have an exhibit for you. It's somewhat, we're going to have to show it to you in pieces. We had a technical problem back at the office and weren't able to reproduce this at a different size. But there you go. Well, that's upside down. That's maybe how the baby in the baby carriage would see it. What staff is concerned about is, as I stated, as you can see as you start at the bottom there, If you have the three-foot setback, which is required by the ordinance, with a ten-foot access easement, you can see the typical height of a two-story single-family home of approximately 24 feet. You can see that and how narrow that appears. If you'll move to the next exhibit, please. that middle exhibit shows a five foot setback off the property line at the 10-foot access easement with the 24-foot house again you can see it's it's much more open at that distance and then eight feet which was the original staff suggestion that is the r1c setback requirement by the way the eight-foot setback. And you can see again how open and nice that appears to allow access to the cemetery lot. And those were the concerns that the staff had on the property. Again, you can see our recommendations that we've made to the Planning Commission on our handout, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Nope. Thank you. Mr. Cayley, good afternoon again. Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We're not necessarily in agreement with Revise 13. The developer suggested going to the portion of this that says the four-foot fence height restriction, and then that would be for the area that would be the side yards of these homes along the access point. That's the 10-foot wide lot spacing. These lots have been designed, approved on a preliminary subdivision plan. He's got certain lot sizes that he's trying to develop. Increasing the side yard setbacks essentially takes yourself from a 45-foot lot and what house you can put in there to a 40-foot house or a 40-foot wide lot and the smaller houses you can do there. In discussing what this looks like setback-wise, the 10-foot access is its own lot. It's a part of that cemetery. That's what's required. Three-foot setbacks on each lot would get up to 16 feet total distance between structures, and that is what the R1C zone would be between your structures. are once these lots, how much room you have in there is room to mow, get your hurries in and out. 16 feet seems quite sufficient. And also, it's a cemetery in the middle of a subdivision that will be maintained by the HOA. This is in everyone's backyards. Making this real inviting to the neighborhood kids is not necessarily what the developer wants to do with this area. What you have to do is you have to maintain this area, 50-foot perimeter, to the cemetery with no disturbance. We're not even grading in there. So then, as they showed, the lot set up is out there. It's large. It's going to be grass. It's going to be mowed, kept nice. But it's not necessarily some place that the neighbors who are going to back up to this are going to want the neighborhood kids ending up in. And then with condition 12, denoting the requirements, if that's what they're looking for, that's fine. The plot itself was not included originally because the implementation of all the requirements haven't been done. Currently you have a few headstones, a few trees out in the middle of this field. That's how it's been for years. The landscaping requirements, the fencing requirements, all that activity has not gone on yet, and they were not planning on doing it with this very first side of development. I know this is where the public street accesses the cemetery, but if condition 12 is to denote these activities have to take place, that's fine. Not necessarily if they all have to be installed with this very first development plan. The other first 11 conditions are all standard, and we were agreeable to those. We'd like to have, if 12 is to denote them without the installation, we would be acceptable to 12. And 13, we would request that it just be the 4-foot fence height restriction on lots 107 and 108 adjacent to the cemetery access prior to certification. instead of having a reduced fence on all sides of the cemetery. We're just talking about reducing it in that access to alleviate the canyon feel of privacy fences. Thank you, Mr. Kaling. Mr. Pins, question? Yeah, for Mr. Pinsley. On the inclusion of the cemetery in this plat, you're okay with that, with including the cemetery in this plan. Yes, and we can copy the notes, the Article 3-7, that those are things that have to be done to this land. Looking at it, they're building our Tibbs Trace and the lots on either side. The cemetery sets off on the middle or side of 300 yet lots to come. They were not planning on doing all of the protection for the cemetery at this time. So it's your all's proposal that you don't want to protect the cemetery until you have to? Don't want to do the installation of the fence and the walls and all that prior to getting this plat recorded. We have three other plats that will define the cemetery and actually create, physically create it when we go to having lots on the ground around it. But you're going to protect the access to it because it's on this flat, but you don't want to protect the cemetery. Well, originally filed, the access is not on this flat. The access is the same lot as the cemetery itself, and we were just holding that back. We can add the access lot, which is also the cemetery, but we're getting close to going to recordation. I just was trying to understand where you were. Thank you. Roy, when do you want to provide the landscaping and fencing protection? Probably with the last plat, because up to that time the developer still has the surrounding property, and it's not being created and turned over to a HOA maintenance. Okay. To me, it seems like if one put houses next to the cemetery, we need to protect it. But we can move on. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? If not, Mr. Martin, clarification as far as denoting? If I may. Yes. Yes. Here we go. Thank you. That's the requirements from 3-7 for cemetery protections. I think the most important one to point out at this time is number 5. Number 5 is very specific in states' offense wall gate on the subject property shall be maintained or repaired. It says where none exists, a new permanent fence shall be enacted prior to any site work or disturbance on the subject property. I believe staff would like to see that one met on this particular plat, but I believe we would be willing to work out a reasonable time frame on the other requirements on this property. There is a lot of property here. There's a lot of lots. There's a lot of development that will occur. But that's a very specific requirement. It states it shall be done. And I think that is a very reasonable requirement, again, in protecting the cemetery from intrusion and children and dogs and that sort of thing, as well as you can try to do that. Mr. Berkley, question? So can, I mean, is something like a silt fence or something like that going to be sufficient? And then what you said to... No, sir. A silt fence will not be sufficient. That requires a fence, a wall or something similar. During their construction? Prior to disturbance of the land. Number one is the requirement that says no construction or disturbance of any kind shall occur within 50 feet. So they're going to have to stay 50 feet away when they grade the property. They'll have to put up silt fences and those types of things consistent with our engineering manual requirements. Okay. And go back to the minimum or the requirement of the 10-foot. Is that? That's the access. Okay. Is that a minimum, maximum recommended? It states 10 foot shall be provided. So I would say that's a minimum. They're doing that. Pardon? They are doing that. Yes, sir, they are. And then we're wanting to put some more limits over and above that, it sounds like. That's the question that I've got. Well, again, I would point to the exhibit. All those apply. And due to the fact that this was identified prior to those being developed fully, staff is recommending the ones that you see on your handout, which we believe are minimal protections for a cemetery. Again, fencing, landscaping, maintenance, access. We don't believe we should require a full-blown study and that sort of thing in this case. But we think it's a reasonable approach. I think the problem is, though, is these lots are already pretty, the frontage is only, what, 45 feet, 44 feet? And then if we put a, I guess we're required to do a three-foot side yard, they're required to that. But if you go up to eight, is that just on that one side then? It would be on both sides of the access, and again, our staff is recommending five to eight feet. Okay, but would it be on a given lot if you have a side yard requirement of eight only on the one side, not on the other side of that particular lot? Oh, no, sir. It would just be as it adjoins the access. Okay. Yes, sir. No, that's okay. There's still a three-foot minimum on the other side of the lot, right? So in effect, if you had 8 feet on one side, 3 on the other, you would be reducing the billable area by a total of 11 feet on that lot. Ms. Blanton? So just for clarification, the 5 to 8 feet that you're recommending as a side yard setback, is that a requirement or is that something that you'd like them to do in addition? That is a staff recommendation. The ordinance requirement is actually 3 feet. Any other questions? Mr. Kaley, anything else to add? Oh, yes. Mr. Drake. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I just thought of one. If my math is correct, then what we've come up with, if there is eight feet on one side, three on another, that's a total of 11. Did I understand it correctly that these lots are 45 feet? So that leaves 34 feet of house width. Is that correct? Yes. How many houses are built of that width? Is that practical? Yeah. Usually when we create these lots and whatever width we have, the builders like to build to that required building setback. 40-foot lots in the R3 zone, 34-foot wide house would be the biggest they could go. So the 34 is standard when you have a 40-foot lot. So what you're telling me then, that you do build 34-foot houses. Okay. Thank you. And these lots vary between 44, 45, 47. Down through there is a bit of a difference. I was going to make that point myself. Lot 107 is 49 feet wide and 6 inches. And 108 is just over 45 feet. So we're dealing with one that's 45 and one that's 49 feet. And, Tom, what the staff is recommending, you're saying five feet or eight feet. That's two more feet than the typical three-foot side yard. Yes, sir. Staff recommended basically a range that we fell from a minimum to a maximum for the setback. Very good. Any other questions? Anyone? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair. Oops, I'm sorry. Okay. Ms. Lindy. One thing that I thought about, too, is that the fences, you're going with a four-foot fence, and I think, Roy, you said you were okay with that. Those fences are only in the backyard. I mean, it's not like you're going to have it fenced all the way up to the corner. It's just going to be from the back corner to the end of the lot. So it's still going to be open on the street front. There's still going to be visibility, and it'll be open and not such a tunnel, such a long tunnel. I mean, I guess I'm still struggling with taking eight feet away on a lot. And the side yard coincides, of course, with the house set back, the front yard set back. So that's where the house will begin, and that's where the fence will be back along. So the house will be there as well. Right, yeah. That's part of the staff's concern. Okay. Mr. Martin, just to be clear on the fencing of the cemetery, that will not preclude the developers from doing anything that they need to do to develop those areas if it is done prior to. Exactly. Right. It's a requirement prior to disturbance of the land. so they can do anything they need to do after that fence is up. It will not interfere with what they need to do thereafter. Is that what I'm understanding? If you look at the cemetery exhibit again, they have a 50-foot buffer around it, but the cemetery itself is where the fence can go. So it's a much smaller area. So they have to respect that 50 feet to begin with. Okay. The fence is really intended to protect the cemetery itself from too much intrusion or abuse. All right. Very good. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? If there's no other questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from the commission members and or a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'd like to make a motion. Everyone ready? Okay, go ahead. I move approval of 2013-98 if the revised recommendation. And I want to change number 13 to just say 5 feet. 5 feet is the billing code. Anyway, you can get a little closer than 5 if you protect it with the outside of the house and drywall. But I think 5 feet would be just 5 feet. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. The motion is made and seconded for approval of Plan 2013-98F with the revised conditions with No. 13 reading to note a plan on the plan a five-foot side yard setback. Yes, sir, Mr. Penn. In your motion, are you including the cemetery to be part of this development plan? Yes. Okay. I'm leaving number 12 the way it's written. Okay. On this revised staff. Okay. So it would be, in your calculations, it would be a 10-foot access easement with, what, 2 1⁄2 feet setback? No, it's 5 feet on each. On each side? Yeah, so it's 20 feet between the houses. Okay. I'll go with that. Thank you. Any other questions regarding the motion? If not, the motion has been made and seconded, so let's vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Okay. Next would be on page three of our agenda under Development Plans 2A. It's DP 2013-61 Lakeview Industrial Subdivisions Unit 3, Lots 1A and 1B. We do have a revised staff recommendation that's on a pink sheet before you. Good afternoon. We are going to move to Lakeview Industrial Subdivision. We are located off of Palumbo Drive, which is located between New Circle Road and Old Todd's Road. This is a final development plan to add additional square footage for a building in the front portion of the property. Currently, there's a building in the rear portion with parking, so they're asking for additional square footage for parking. At the subdivision committee meeting, when we were reviewing this, the staff had recommended postponement. Since that meeting, we have received a revised copy of the plan. They have removed some of the cleanup conditions. They've also been working with other governmental agencies to take the discussion comments and be able to change those to resolve. We have our standard sign-off conditions, the first seven. We still have one cleanup condition to correct number four to replace storm sewers and stormwater detention with stormwater management. Our discussion questions resolved proposed circulation on the property to the approval of the Division of Traffic Engineering. There was some concerns about they wanted to have docking in between the two buildings, but they have changed that so now that it has better circulation for other large vehicles for fire and waste management. Our last one is to resolve stormwater detention and relevant notes for the detention basin. The front portion of the property had a detention note on it from a previous record plant, and they have made notes to make reference to where the detention will be in the front and the rear of the property, and they're bringing the notes forward from that record plant. With that, the staff now can recommend approval. Any questions? Questions from Ms. Caldwell? Let me ask you, traffic is okay? Do you think they can resolve these issues? Right. Yes, sir. Right. Applant, anything to add? No? You're in agreement with revised conditions? You are? Okay. Very good. Kyle Crater, Summit Engineering. Yes, we're in agreement. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Penn? Cheryl, I could ask you that, but neither one. When they change the circulation pattern, show me where the docking is going to be. Originally they had the docking to be connected between the two buildings, but now they've changed it so they have a docking area for the rear building and a docking area for the front. The circulation allows them to come along the side of the property and come through to create a circulation around the new building. What about the back building? They're not able to get through to the back. There's electric, I believe, air conditioning units that go along this way, so they're not able to get that way. But there's enough room for them to pull forwards and back up. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open up for any discussion and or motion. Ms. Blanton. Move approval of DP 2013-61 Lakeview Industrial Subdivision with the 10 revised conditions outlined by staff. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2013-61 with the revised 10 conditions. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Next, moving on to page 4, top of the page, DP2013-64, Kingston Hall, Unit 2. And we do have revisions. That's on a blue sheet before you. Also, EAMP compliance statement as well. Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to recuse myself on this particular discussion since I serve as the Chairman of the Board of Palliative Health Care, which is a subsidiary of hospice. Okay. Thank you. You're excused. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is DP 2013-64 Kingston Hall Unit 2, also known as East Bridgeford Land and Development Company. We have passed out a sheet to the Planning Commission with revised conditions in blue, along with a memorandum addressing the AMP compliance on this property. This is a final development plan. It's associated with a 16-acre tract in this location fronting on Newtown Pike. Here is Providence Parkway in this location, and this is the urban service boundary. and there are eaton farms and other farms of course to the north going out newtown pike you just recently saw a development plan and approved it on this property this was the plan amends that and as you all may be aware that's due to the need to change the zoning ordinance to allow the hospice use in the ea zone property that has been approved and adopted by the urban county council so they are ready now to move forward with this plan there are similarities to the plan you approved again the previous plan had the buildings for the hospice in this area it had parking in this area here is mary faye place which is a local street that's planned to connect this property to providence parkway this is the access point that was approved on the previous plan for the property off of Newtown Pike. Again, here you have the scenic resource area setback that's required on this property as well, so you can see there's a nice open scenic area in the front. The significant change that you do see on this property is the fact that this is 72,000 square feet of billable area, and that is more than what was on the previous plan. Part of that has to do with the fact that they've added Phase 2 on this plan for your approval, so that should they need to expand in the near future, they have the ability to do so. So this is the Phase 2 area in this area. This is a maintenance building and that sort of thing that's in this location. Again, you can see the parking, nice large radius here to allow turning movements in trucks, etc. The significant thing about the parking is it's much less. When this was approved strictly as an ED project, you may recall, there was over 200 parking spaces required based on that square footage. With the text amendment that went through, the parking, due to the use, was greatly reduced. And at this point, you have only 60 parking spaces on the property, and that is quite a significant decrease in parking, but also in pavement and that sort of thing. The property buildings have been dropped slightly. They curve. That is so they can average relative to this setback that is required. There is an urban service boundary setback required of 100 feet, but they are allowed to average. The plan has been recommended by your staff, subject to the conditions that you see on your blue sheet. There are standard conditions, of course, on every development plan that you can see. The item 10 is to revise the USA buffer to match the agreed-upon buffer with the adjacent property owner. You may recall there was some discussion on the previous plan, and there are several options available under that article to the property owner to buffer the property, and one of those includes coming to an agreement with the adjoining property owner, and we would like to have that revised to reflect that agreement. We would like to have them denote Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's approval of the right turn taper. You may recall that discussion on the previous plan. The Department of Transportation has approved that access point. They approved it on the previous plan, but there is a right turn taper, And you may recall, again, that discussion to help traffic get out of the way on Newtown, where there's a lot of traffic and a lot of high speed in this area, and that's a safety improvement that they have indicated their willingness to approve. We'd like for them to clarify the lot line and right-of-way limits on Newtown Pike frontage. There's just some problems in scaling some of the setbacks, and we want to be absolutely clear that they're showing the dedicated right-of-way and the setbacks appropriately on this plan. and then of course there is the need to make a finding by this body that it complies with the AMP. We have handed that out to you. It's just a memo. You made that finding on the previous plan. And I'll very briefly remind you that the AMP compliance governs infrastructure, community development standards, infrastructure. The Providence Place Parkway is complete. The regional sanitary sewer pump station that's planned for this area has not yet been constructed, and that is the urban county government's requirement. You may again recall they're putting in a pump station for this property that's going to utilize an existing pump station near the Arby site, McDonald site, along Newtown Pike until such time as that regional sewer pump station is complete. And again, staff has recommended to you that they do comply with the EMP, and the memo states that fact once again. There is another issue about resolving the buffer adjacent to the pool property, particularly loss of tree canopy. It is a tree protection area. They are stating they have enough trees to meet their canopy requirements, so we would be concerned that they not lose any trees by any clearing and any work they might do in that area. Staff is also aware that Dr. Poole, the adjoining property owner, has had some concerns with the appropriate screening of her property. And again, just to remind you of that, Dr. Poole is located here, and she runs a veterinary practice. And so we understand she is concerned about appropriate screening for her veterinary practice, primarily in this location. And staff would just be concerned that we not lose any trees in this area, particularly relative to the required canopy on this plan. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Penn. So, Tom, the cul-de-sac that ties into Mary Blaine, whatever that driveway is that goes from Providence Parkway through, that won't be constructed on their property until whatever time that road is built? Well, it's shown on the plan. I know that's why I'm asking. Yes, sir. There's two approaches that can be taken, and one is they're issued a permit and they construct what is on the plan. I know that they have expressed some concern about that timing of that cul-de-sac. So the follow-up question to that is, until that road is built, there's one way in and one way out. That's Newtown Pike. Yes, sir. Sixty parking spaces and how many square feet? It's 72,000 total, concluding phase two. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Drake? Where is Providence Place relative to New Circle Road? Okay. Well, to start with, Providence Place is just north of the interstate, I-75. Okay. So we're all the way out on the north end of our urban service boundary. This is the vicinity map, and here's I-75. Here's Stanton Way with the motels and restaurants. And then this is Providence Parkway. Thank you. Dr. Beatty? Mr. Martin, on the previous plan that we saw, was there not an exit to the back, to the rear of the property? We just weren't going to use that as the main entrance? There was some discussion about exits to the rear, but there was not one on the plan. There was a previous preliminary subdivision plan that showed a road, an old driveway in that location. And there was some discussion about the possibility of utilizing a rear exit. But it is not? It is not on the plan. No, ma'am. They don't control that property. Okay. Mr. Penn? There was some discussion about moving the entrance off of Newtown Pike farther north to get not such a quick pop over the hill. Did that go by the wayside also? No, sir. Originally, of course, they had come in with it right here, which we felt, along with traffic, ill-advised. Down here, there was some sight distances. This is the location that both our traffic engineers and the Kentucky Department of Transportation. So that's not where the current road is now? No, I believe the current road is a little bit further to the north. To the north? A little bit, I believe, yes, sir. So we're making it closer to the hill instead of farther. I believe they're putting it in a location where they believe the sight distance would be better, is staff's understanding. That doesn't make sense. Mr. Martin, you, and we'll move on here in just a second, number 14 resolved buffer, loss of tree canopy adjacent pool property. What's a required buffer there? There is no required buffer. They are showing it as a, they're zoned the same, the properties are, so there's no required buffer. But the TPA, of course, is a requirement, and they're listing it. And they are stating that they don't need any additional tree canopy because they're protecting existing canopy. So we would be concerned about the loss there. And then, obviously, I believe Dr. Poole is concerned about appropriate buffering of her property. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on and ask for the afternoon at this point. Mr. Murphy, good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. I'm Richard Murphy representing Hospice of the Bluegrass, and with me today is Gretchen Brown, CEO of Hospice of the Bluegrass, Matt Carter from Vision Engineering, our designer. And I handed the staff, and I just needed a note for the record, that we had a number of notifications we had to put in the record. We have the notification regarding posting the sign, the affidavit that the sign is posted. We've had some people on various development plans that were required to notify Eaton Farms, Mr. Turner, Mr. Darby Turner, their attorney. Also, Jack Birch, Harry Scott, and the North Fayette Neighborhood Association care of Greg Goodman, they've been notified. And we also have five or six notification letters to commissioners of the urban county government that we have to send to regarding our expansionary master plan compliance statement. So I put those all on the record. So we've done all the notifications we needed to on this one. We're back to you. You've seen us twice, one for the original development plan, second one for the text amendment. I'm happy to report that the text amendment making hospices a principal use in this zone was passed unanimously by the Urban County Council last week. So we have brought back to you our final plan. As you remember, our original one you saw a couple months ago identified this as a medical clinic, something like Lexington Clinic, and we had to meet parking requirements for use that has doctors seeing patients throughout the day with a lot of patient turnover and traffic in and out. We are able to go with the proper parking requirement now, which, as the staff mentioned, is 60, much less parking, obviously much less traffic in and out than a medical clinic were identified as a hospice use on this. So we've cleaned up to show the way we want this to be built. So on the buffering on two sides, we have issues on the north. Eaton Farm, as the staff has mentioned, and put on condition 10, revised the USA buffer to match agreed upon buffer with the adjacent property owner. We will do that. I've had discussions with Mr. Turner and agreed that we reached a written agreement in June about buffering. signed by both sides, and we've agreed to show details of that on this plan with Mr. Turner. So we've agreed to that. On the south side, along Dr. Poole, we appreciate all the input on that and what we've talked about with Dr. Poole on the tree preservation area in the front. We're not concerned about saving trees there if they die or something because this is going to be an open area next to her open paddocks. The concern is in the rear, and we've agreed there if we disturb this area or if trees are removed, they would be replaced to maintain the existing level of buffer that's there right now, that we would replace trees back here because this is the more important area where our parking area is vis-à-vis her operation back here. So we've agreed to do that. I know Dr. Poole is here today as well and can address that with you. On the location of the access point, during the discussion I asked Matt Carter from Vision, this access point is where the existing driveway is on the property. Not on this development plan, but on the one you saw two or three months ago, So we had originally started out with the access point further down here. After it was reviewed by the state transportation cabinet and the city traffic people, it has been determined that where we're showing it right now at the existing driveway point is the point of visibility. The state has approved that as an access point. They've approved the taper. there's emails back and forth approving that obviously we'll have to get confirmation of that before the staff will sign off on that but both the state transportation cabinet and the city division of traffic engineering have approved our exit and ingress and egress configuration as we're showing it on this plan one other thing I wanted to address and that was the question that Mr. Pan brought up about the construction of the cul-de-sac. Even before you brought that up, I was going to know we are requesting not to build that until such time as Mary Faye Place is built through here. There's no purpose for us to pave down there near Dr. Poole's property line until that road is built through. So I think the staff is in agreement with that. That's our understanding, and that's what we will put on this plan, that that cul-de-sac area would not be built until Mary Fay Place is connected up there. At that time, the hospice would build that on there. And, again, we appreciate your attention to these matters. We know we've been before you twice before, so I'm not going to go through all the details that we've been through in the two times we were here before. But this hospice is very excited about the prospect of moving here. They've found in Hazard, in a freestanding hospice facility that they operate there, that it is very well received by patients and families and their employees. It has worked out extremely well, and they know that this will work out extremely well here as well. And we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Questions for Mr. Murphy? Yes, ma'am. Yes, what is the timeline on this, please? Well, we won't be breaking ground tomorrow on that, I know. We're looking at three to five years. The number of feasibilities. If you can come forward. The community for work. This is Gretchen Brown, the Chief Executive Officer of the Bluegrass. As we say, when you work with a community board, you have to have a lot of – jump through a lot of hoops and have a lot of compliance issues. So we'll move slowly. We'll do a fundraising feasibility. We'll do a RFP for architects and all that kind of thing. So I'm thinking that probably we won't have a shovel in the ground for about three years. It could be sooner, but I'm not expecting that. The reason I'm inquiring is because of the capacity assurance. Right. Because if the, and I don't think the spent in Area 3 is grandfathered in, if the present pump station is full, then you would have to wait to build the new one. I'm going to let Dick speak to that, but I think we've got that covered. We've been investigating the capacity as part of our due diligence in purchasing the property because we want to make sure there's capacity there. Expansion Area 3 is not grandfathered in. We have to jump through the same hoops everybody else does. Only Expansion Area 2 over on the east side is grandfathered in. We have checked this out with a division of water quality, and we're told there's a capacity of 96,000 gallons a day for us on this, and we would not use a quarter of that capacity here at this location. So there is capacity. They have mentioned issues down at the pump station, but mentioned that we do have capacity to go forward today if we wanted to with the first phase of the hospice. So we are mindful of that, but the Division of Water Quality is in the loop on all the reviews of this, and it has assured us that we do have capacity. Mr. Penn. To follow up on Ms. Plumlee's question, Mr. Murphy, if you all decide to build and the rest of that property hadn't developed, are you going to put the line to the current station, or how will that work? Yeah, what we're going to have to do is, if the big pump station has not yet been built, and that's the one that's going to take like five other pump stations offline, even south of I-75. If that hasn't been built yet, we're going to have to put a little pump station in for our facility alone to pump to an existing manhole, which is down the road on Providence Place, somewhere around here, which I understand then gravity flows, down to the pump station at the McDonald's. So we would have to do that at our expense, and then, of course, it would go offline when the big pump station comes in. The Division of Water Quality has said their timeline for doing the big pump station is within five years on that. So obviously if we go before that, we're going to have to build our own little pump station here. The reason I was asking is because that property has high exaction fees on it, and not your property, the joining property, and that's going to slow it down developing. Well, this has real high exaction fees too, and the exaction fees do go to the fund to build the big pump station in here, So much of that is recovered from this property and the other properties in expansion area three. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Murphy, let me ask just a couple things. You mentioned pump station. Pump station has been mentioned, and supposedly it's going to be in the back of this property. Is it still on this property or is it behind off this property? Well, if we do our own pump station, the temporary one, we're showing it right here, this little white square. That would be on our property. Now, the big pump station, they haven't determined the location of that yet. I understand there was some discussion at one point. It may be here, but I understand the latest discussion is it may be better someplace else as far as the engineering aspects of getting liquid where it needs to go on here. So we don't know exactly where the big regional pump station will be at this point. Okay. Line item as far as buffering with the pool property, do you know how dense that is now? So I'm not sure how dense it is. It's pretty dense. It's very overgrown, but I think we're looking forward, as Dr. Poole is, to clearing some of that out. We're still going to have an adequate screen between her property and ours to protect her horses and our view. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions at the moment? Others would like to speak in regards to this plan? Yes, ma'am. Dr. Poole. Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Poole, and I own the property just south of this proposed development. I would like some clarification on the buffer. What exists now is some old hardwood trees, but probably 30 or 40 feet of the honeysuckle, just the kind of fence line mess. They're talking about cleaning that out but not removing the trees to protect the canopy, and I appreciate that. But if you remove all that honeysuckle, you are going to open me up to their parking lot and their buildings. What I would like is some clarification on a solid visual barrier to go back in, which we've talked about, but I know they have given Mr. Eaton something in writing, and I would appreciate the same courtesy. so we know exactly what's going to go back in there. My concern is horses seeing children and cars, the wind blowing through there. So I would like some clarification on what's going to go back in there. Thank you. Thank you. Questions? Anyone else like to speak on this? No? Mr. Murphy, can you provide any clarification? I'm sure you're disgusting now. I was just talking to Ms. Brown, and we'd be perfectly willing to put something in writing with Dr. Poole to work that out, because I think it's in interest of both parties to have a good visual separation there. And so hopefully we can come to that agreement and we can agree to do that before this plan is certified. If you want to do that. Ms. Plumlee? Could we make that condition 15 then? I'm just trying to think of the... I mean, could we clarify it just more? I'll ask staff, is it possible or Mr. Murphy resolve buffer to the adjacent pool property with mutual agreement? Something like that, by mutual agreement? I've got a draft. Thank you. Addition to condition number 14 we'll put on the overhead for your consideration. I think it will get at what Dr. Poole and Mr. Murphy have described. It would read, resolve buffer, parentheses, loss of tree canopy, adjacent to the Poole property, to include a solid visual barrier. I think that's what both parties talked about. So you're adding to include a solid visual barrier? That seemed to be the issue discussed with the honeysuckle or an alternate agreement between the two. Okay. Our expectation as staff would be that that would be denoted on the plan prior to the plan being signed. Mr. Selle, any reason to specify what would be used? The harm in doing that and, say, dictating landscaping material would be if they discuss it and agree upon something different, they would need an amendment, technically. Okay. Mr. Murphy? We're agreeable with that. We've been just chatting back and forth, and I think between the two parties, we can come up with exactly what type of plants come in there. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Poole? I'm in agreement with the addition. Okay. So, Mr. Selle, just to clarify, your suggestion, and resolve buffer parentheses loss of tree canopy adjacent to the pool property to include a solid visual barrier? Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. I guess the question just asked of me, does that include a wall? Shouldn't you say green? I suppose the parties could agree upon a wall. Okay. That would be a little surprising given the discussion. Okay. Very good. Any other questions? Both parties are in agreement, I believe. Dr. Beatty? Yes, ma'am? I don't have a question. I have another comment. Okay. Sure. Do we need another condition to address the cul-de-sac not being constructed until which time Mary Fay Place is built, or is it okay, the fact that it's on the plan, but we've all agreed that it's not going to be constructed? Do we need a condition? I guess this is a question for staff. Mr. Silley? This is an item the staff did consider. Ordinarily, to not construct part of a public street, and the half cul-de-sac would have to, as we've discussed, need to be considered a public street, ordinarily requires a waiver of the land subdivision regulations. That's not been requested with this plan. It was requested with the previous plan, and staff did not recommend approval of that waiver at the time. there is an opportunity every month for an applicant to request only a waiver to the subdivision regulations. And in our mind, that could be done any time going forward, either in the near term or closer to the three-year construction timeline that they're anticipating today. The benefit of doing it perhaps at a later time would be there may be more known about the street connection through Dr. Poole's property at a future time. Plus, it allows the opportunity to consider perhaps bonding that may be necessary to ensure that that half cul-de-sac is built in the future to allow things to go forward. So I think from the staff perspective, I think our preference would be to leave it on the plan as is. The applicants can certainly ask for a waiver to the subdivision regulations to postpone that construction at a future meeting. Your staff would prepare the ordinary written report for you like we do on every waiver report, and that would give us an opportunity to discuss with the engineering department what bonding requirements might be necessary to allow that to be delayed. I hope that makes sense. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Murphy? I've been asked to ask you a question, and it is, and I'm smiling because, hospice would like to know why they would have to pay their lawyer later on to ask for that if you can do it now. So asking a question against interest here on that, but it's a legitimate question on that. We do not plan on, we would like not to build that until it comes through, and I fully understand that, not wanting to go through another round in order to establish that. Maybe if we can have some notation on there that it's a phase, you can phase development on a development plan, and that the cul-de-sac would be another phase of development, I think, would accomplish the same thing. Thank you. I'll defer to Mr. Salley on this. They do have a phase two identified on this development plan. perhaps that cul-de-sac could be denoted as phase two with some appropriate note that would tie its completion to the other part of Mary Faye Place. That's the only thing I can think of off the top of my head. So we would need a number 15 denoting that the cul-de-sac is on phase two? So, okay. And number 15, denoting that the cul-de-sac is on phase two. Anything else? No? Okay. There's no other questions. I'll close this part of it and ask for a motion. Mr. Finn. I'm ready for a motion. Yes, sir. If the rest of the commission is ready for a motion. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I move for approval of DB 2013, Day 64, with 15 conditions, changing to No. 14 to say resolve buffer loss of tree camp adjacent to the Poo property to include a solid visual barrier, and No. 15, that the COLA SAC will be on Phase 2. Do you want the compliance report as a separate motion? I think that's covered under No. 13. Okay. then that will be the motion. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with the revised conditions as stated. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Moving on down to page 4, it's item C, DP 2013-71, the Coach House South Broadway property amended. You have revised conditions on a salmon-colored sheet before you. Coach House? And someone want to go after Mr. Wilson? I think you had to amend that. Welcome back. Mr. Mark, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is DP 2013-71, the Coach House, South Broadway property. This is property that is located on South Broadway adjacent to the Tattersalls housing development that has just recently been completed. Again, we have South Broadway in this location. At this direction would be Red Mile Road. Right back in this direction would be Angliana Avenue. The Tattersalls apartment development is adjacent here and towards the rear of the property. This property has an access road in this location. This is the Waffle House. And, of course, this is the site of the Coach House that's the purpose of this amendment to be redeveloped. They're proposing a restaurant, a hamburger, a well-known apparently hamburger place in North Carolina and similar places. At this location, it's a little over 5,000 square feet. There's 61 parking spaces on the site that you can see here. they have had a series of discussions with staff to address several issues with access and you may recall originally this site as it exists has two access points and again here's the service road and there's a right turn lane into this access road here this is a revised plan that staff received This was revised to remove the access point right here that was immediately adjacent to the Tattersall's access point. And again, there was considerable discussion by this body on the Tattersall's access, you may recall. Partly that was due to this access point, this access point, the Speedway, and all the many access points along South Broadway and the concern with the impact on the traffic. They have, as I said, filed an amended plan addressing staff's concerns there. They are proposing to maintain a full access point in this location. One of the interesting aspects about this development is the kind of dual drive-through that they have here and a crossover where this lane crosses over in front of the store. Apparently this is a model that they utilize on many locations and have utilized successfully. Our traffic engineers have reviewed it. They have seen videos and they feel like it can work, is what they've reported to your planning staff. In addition, there have been some discussions, and although it hasn't been reflected on this plan, they are going to modify the circulation on the property in this area to be one way to relieve problems internally at this intersection. Their original plan had a large number of conditions on it. Those were cleaned up with the revised condition. We have revised conditions on your orange sheet that we passed out. you can see that there are the standard development plan conditions with engineering and traffic, solid waste, division of fire, and, of course, the water quality's approval under the Capacity Assurance Program. There are still a couple of cleanup items, dimension pedestrian walkways and access points to South Broadway. And as I described before, there was complete detail of the proposed crossover. drive-through circulation to the approval of traffic engineering, document Kentucky Transportation Cabinet approval of access, and then you'll notice clarified location of landscape adjacent to an ingress and egress easement. This is a very interesting situation from staff's perspective, those of us that do this sort of thing. You can see it highlighted in this location. that is an ingress and egress easement, and it is solely and completely to the favor of the Tattersalls property for them to use should they need it. Now, this was done at the time. This was still a horse operation, and they had sales and barns and all that sort of thing in this location. The concern would be for staff at this time is for the appropriate landscaping vehicular use area buffering not to impinge on that easement because it is in favor of the joining property owners. Now, if they can obviously work something out and change that or have that removed or released, that would be a different situation. They've added pedestrian access in this point. That was one of staff's concerns. There's actually an ADA-compliant sidewalk shown. Got a bit of a switchback and all that to it, but they've addressed that issue. And, again, staff has worked with them. They've worked with us from day one. and staff appreciates that to address our concerns on the property. With that, I would say again, point out that staff now recommends approval of the plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, Will. I know on the property next door, we required a right-in, right-out entrance only. And I know as a part of the Newtown Pike project, Chair Avenue, which is down from here, is going to be converted to a right-in, right-out only. So is that not something we need to maybe consider and talk about here? Since we have just passed that. It is an item you certainly are welcome to discuss. I would just point out that this plan has been reviewed by your local traffic engineer and planning staff, and we believe that it will function. Of course, Kentucky Department of Transportation will also have the opportunity to weigh in on that as well. But certainly if this body is concerned about that, as they were with tattersalls, you should discuss it. And, Mr. Berkeley, I would also add this site currently has two access points unrestricted, and they're going to one, which we think is an improvement. It is, yeah. Other questions? Not at this time? Okay. Yes, Mr. Penn? Eventually, when that all gets developed, there will be an access out on Red Mile Road that will work for internal traffic. Only from the Tattersalls apartment property, not from this property. Where are the two accesses that we show on Red Mile Road on the adjoining property? You show two right there. Well, this actually doesn't show any access. No, no, down where Red Mile Road is. Oh, this isn't Red Mile Road. This is a road that serves this development here. This is the Waffle House, and there's the gas station convenience store that's changed ownership several times. You have the motel in the back, and I think there's a Mexican restaurant and that sort of thing. And we did discuss that access relative to Red Mile and in the motel area. I thought when we developed that whole area there that we were going to have some way to relieve that traffic and not have to come out on Broadway to get to Red Mile Road. We endeavored in several opportunities, one being the Red Mile multi-use plan, where we talked about trying to provide a connection over to this road that you see through the motel parking lot. That is still an option, perhaps, if the proper donors will cooperate. All right. Thank you. Yes, we got a discussion on that other plan recently, I guess the Red Mile plan, as far as with that street dead ending into their property, and it was property owner differences, I guess. This plan does have full access out onto that side street, which has full access onto South Broadway. Yes. Dr. Beatty, question? Yes. This area obviously will lend itself very well to walking and biking traffic, Are there internal sidewalks proposed? I just can't see it from here. As well as biking areas, parking for biking. That's a very good question. Our bike and ped people are a sign-off on this plan, and staff had originally raised the issue of being sure that there was a well-delineated pedestrian access into the site. This is the entrance to the store. So that's why they have this, to help from the right-of-way traffic, along the right-of-way, pedestrian traffic this way. They don't show bike racks. That's certainly something they may wish to consider for the bicyclists in the area. They don't show, this area has developed, I believe there are sidewalks along this road, but they don't show any internal connections with sidewalks, no, ma'am. Other questions? That would only be of concern because of the circulation pattern of the traffic, because it appears that the way the drive-through goes around, that you could really be in crossways if it's not delineated well where biking or walkways are just a thought. No, and that's very good. and I think that's why they've tried to keep it in this location, to keep people coming to the front, to the entrance. And, of course, people being who they are, you hope they don't just wander through. But, yes, this crossover and this circulation is a new design, certainly for our community. Other questions? Applicant, anything to add? Yes, I'm Rob Hefner. I'm here representing Cookout, and I'm here to answer any questions. We definitely are interested in the bike rack for bicyclists, but I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Any questions? Yes. Can you give me your thoughts on the right in, right out that I talked about? What complications, if any, that provides? Well, actually, we are eliminating one of the access roads, and I feel like that's probably, and we talked about traffic engineering, and I feel like that would definitely be sufficient with just one curb cut for our property. I don't know how else to answer that, but it seemed to work well. or works well for our design plan. I guess my question is if it were to be right in, right out, would that create any kind of complications? I'll say that. Lay out. My concern is right past that you've got a full entrance in and out, left, right, whatever you want to do there. And that other one is pretty close. I recognize you all are eliminating one entrance, which is positive. I'm Jeremy Reeves. I'm the owner of my dad and my grandmother and myself. But really we couldn't even do it if we went to right in, right out. And the reason is because, which is not relevant, I guess, but we're spending more money than we've ever spent. And then with the people, it would jam everybody up going through a Waffle House. And I don't even know if they would go through there. It would just be a disaster. Plus, with the way the circulation is, they'd have to circle a couple times then. So, I mean, it would be really bad. So, I mean, it would be bad. Because if you were coming from the left, you'd come in, you'd circle, then you'd circle back out through Waffle House. It would... What about when you've got people lined up trying to turn left out of there? I mean, is that not going to create the same... We did it today at lunch, and it wasn't an issue. So my cousin and I were there today at lunch, and we did it today, and we're studying it, and it wasn't an issue. I mean, I think you'll still get some traffic coming out, potentially through the Waffle House. But, I mean, we didn't even want to live. What we really wanted was to keep that full access and switch the other one to a right in, right out. But then I thought, well, I know the goal was obviously probably less curb cuts on the road. So I said, well, so I talked Dad and Grandmother and everybody into, let's get rid of one and see if everybody will be okay with that. But I had no idea that we'd look at both. But I understand what you're saying, but it would be real bad. So it would probably also be the largest frontage lot we've had ever without a curb cut. I mean, without a full curb cut. But, yeah, it would be pretty bad. What we would prefer is a right in, right out. But we're okay with eliminating the one. But what we'd really respectively please ask for is to spend that much money and so much of everything we have is to have that full access because it would be just rough. There is enough stacking. Let's say there was a concern three or four cars were waiting to leave. there is enough stacking to leave there to wait their turn. But, again, we've spent a lot of time there during peak hours just checking traffic because we don't want that to be a concern for the community. But we feel like this is a sufficient layout, and it gives enough room for left out. Mr. Finn, question? I'd like to get Casey to come up here and talk about, are they going to have to pull out of the middle and then wait to clear? or are they going to be able to go all the way across and get in that left-hand lane going toward town? I'm trying to think back on how wide that is there. There's lots of times a day you're not going to be able to turn left or you're going to have to pull out there and wait until you can get into the right-hand lane to go toward town. You're all going to create a lot more traffic there than the coach house did. Well, one thing I can tell you one thing. Well, I'm sure, or another restaurant came in there and had the two curb cuts. As we have done our due diligence, we have decided that with the one curb cut, that should cut down any traffic concerns there. But if another restaurant took the site as is, I'm not sure how that would work then. I think. One thing Rob did mention today, which definitely we think, is there's going to be a lot of walk-up, too, that's not even in a car. So, I mean, I think that's going to be a lot of welcome. That's why I like the, we have bike racks that are already at a lot of stores, and that's just an oversight. I didn't even notice we didn't have it. So we do want the bike racks, so for sure, because we have a lot of people that park on bikes all the time. Yeah, but I'm not talking about bike racks. I'm talking about somebody going to turn left trying to get to town. Okay. Yeah. I think what this trend says, it's not curb cuts itself, it's safety. Casey, are you back there? I'm not. Hey, I'm Casey with Traffic Engineering. As far as the access points and the right in, right out versus allowing a full access, traffic has looked at it, and we are comfortable with the full access there. When you try to put the limitation of the right in, right out, you go back to the vehicles obeying that when it's light traffic are they just going to do it anyway i think at this location the full access would function in front of there there's a right turn lane and then there's two through lanes a median and then two going inbound is it's not a median and there's a place you stack there. Turn lane. Turn lane. Right. How many cars will that hold? Because I think you're just going to hope to get to the turn lane. I don't think you're going to get across three or four lanes of traffic. It's a two-way turn lane. So, you know, potentially within that turn lane, if you're coming out of the property we're looking at and you're in that turn lane, you would then have to, if you chose to get there, there's a potential for people coming from the other side that would get in that turn lane also. Meaning two ways. You could turn. If you're going inbound, you could turn left. And if you're going outbound, you could turn left. I'm not sure I explained that well. You could have two-way traffic in there. I think you call that a suicide lane. I would not. I'd prefer them get in the drive lane, yes. Mr. Berkley? I don't know if you're going to know the answer to this or not, but what makes this entrance any different from the Tattersall's entrance that is just, what is that, east of that? Are you referring to the write-in, write-out that was just? Yes. What makes this particular entrance different from that one? I'm almost in favor of letting them have both write-in, write-outs, more so than I am allowing them to have a full one. But I know staff has looked at this and maybe has some difference of opinions on that. I don't really know that I have a good answer for you as far as a difference. I think this plan is an improvement from what is out there currently. They're eliminating one access, so the spacing is a better design, the spacing between the tatter saws and the proposed one. meaning they're eliminating the one. And if I may, because Casey wasn't here on the previous plan, one of the chief differences in Tattersall's right in and right out, it was immediately adjacent to the coach house's existing full access point. And it was also relative to the Speedway access point. So again, by removing this one, we've increased the spacing between the access points, and that was one of the reasons we felt it was better. Ms. Blandon, did you have something? I was just going to make that same point with the speedway access and then the Angliana. You've got a big mess all right in a row down there, and then at least there's some spacing between the tattersalls and where this is. Okay, thank you. Anything else? Anyone else wish to speak? Any other questions from the Commission? If not, I'll – Mr. Cravens, question? You ready for a motion? Okay. We'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Cravens? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of DP 2013-71 the revised staff recommendations. I think traffic's fully checked out that full intersection there, and I don't think they'd recommend it if it wasn't least doable. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP2013-71 with the revised 16 conditions. if there's no questions regarding the motion please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes with a split decision thank you Next would be on page 5, Fayette Mall, D.E. 2013-73. We do have revised conditions on this, and they're on a grace sheet before you. Everybody okay or ready for it? A brief timeout has been requested, so we'll take just a quick five-minute break as we're setting up. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Thank you. 2013-73 Fayette Mall, revised conditions on the grace sheet. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Item E on page 5 of your agenda is Development Plan 2013-73 Fayette Mall, Amendment No. 12. Of course, this is Fayette Mall out on Nicholasville Road at the intersection of West Reynolds Road. Nicholasville Road in this location, Norfolk Southern Railroad, running along this boundary of the property. And, of course, the park is in this area. And, again, Target is located over here across West Reynolds Road. What is known as Fayette Commons and that area with the theater is the development in this location. Fayette Mall, as you all are aware, has access from Reynolds Road, Nicholasville Road, as well as connections over to the south into Fayette Commons, location here and here. You can see that we've tried to render the mall for you, And what we've highlighted are the areas of amendment. It's this area. As everyone's now aware, that Sears has vacated the property, and this is going to be redeveloped into smaller shops, restaurants, and that sort of thing. And this area was where the auto repair center was. It's going to be torn down. They're going to put parking here. and they are also proposing to develop a 10,000 square foot building in this location at the corner here as an outlot development. The mall itself will expand in terms of ground coverage by coming out in this direction and obviously by adding this, it's somewhat larger than the auto store that's being torn down. So you're going to see a net increase in lot coverage. However, a very significant aspect of this plan is that they are decommissioning most of the second floor of the Sears building. And this goes directly to their parking requirement. And we've prepared an exhibit, and it's been handed out to you. It's this piece of paper that was passed out during the break. that we believe, and it helps clarify exactly what's happening with this amendment to Fayette Mall. The current amendment and the current approved plan has just over 900,600 square feet of ground coverage. The amendment that you see before you, as I stated, will increase that ground coverage by about 35,000 square feet. The total floor area, again, from the decommissioning of the second floor of Sears, along with the expansion along the front of the store, is going to result in a net decrease in square footage of over 20,000 square feet. That goes again directly to the heart of the parking requirement, and you can see that that's been reduced. The parking requirement has from 5,492 to 5,411, and the ultimate result is a decrease in the surplus in the parking. There are four surplus parking spaces now on the site. Parking, of course, has been a great challenge over the years for Fayette Mall. And that really sums up to a great extent what's happening with this remodel and expansion of Fayette Mall. Staff has recommended approval of this plan subject to the revised conditions that you have before you. We have our standard sign-offs for a final development plan, including the newest one and perhaps in some ways one of the most important ones is the documentation of the Division of Water Quality's approval under the Capacity Assurance Program prior to certification. There are several small cleanup conditions, things like dimensioning all the dry vials in the areas identified of amendment. They've done that in some areas, but particularly in the outlot area, they have not done that. That's just a cleanup item. addition of parking counts from previous development plan. As stated, there's 5,411 parking spaces. We did receive an exhibit with the parking on there. The numbers were consistent and added up, and we spot-checked some areas and were confident in those numbers, but we want them clearly delineated on the plan as they were in the past. We would like for them to document compliance with interior landscaping requirements. Over time in our shopping centers, as you all may be aware, landscaping comes and goes and trees die and things happen in the islands. And we think at this time this is a major amendment. It would be appropriate for them to document that they are complying with those landscaping requirements. They need to resolve timing of construction with the removal or release of existing easements. although not readily apparent on this plan there's lots of dotted lines everywhere they're just everywhere and some of them exist although not shown inside these buildings there's easements all over this property and there's been numerous plats and there's been several easement plats as well when this P.F. Chang's and the other restaurant when this expansion was done they had to move easements that existed here down into this area, and we did receive a plat that modified and changed those easements. They have the same problem here. By expanding out, they're going to conflict with some existing easements. They need to address that, and we need to have an understanding of the timing of how they intend to do that, particularly because a couple of these are public. They're sanitary sewer and stormwater easements. The others are utility easements. There's various ways to approach that. but again we just need to have that addressed on this plan we have also would like for them to resolve the location of a pedestrian access to a designated transit stop to the approval of transportation planning this was of considerable discussion at technical committee and among staff and at your subdivision committee as well there is a need in this area they generate a lot of bus riders, and Lex Tran does serve the area. Lex Tran does like to be on the periphery. It helps their schedule, it helps their movement of their buses, and it helps safety. However, over the recent history of the service out here, bus riders were out along the periphery. Particularly, there were people catching the bus out here on Mall Road. There's no transit stop. They're well removed from the store, our stores. And so we've been working with them, and they've responded. We've seen an exhibit, and they have been working with Lex Tran and our transportation staff to work on providing a nice pedestrian sidewalk out to a transit stop somewhere in this facility, I mean this vicinity. The benefits are not only obviously provide safety to the people and a shelter, but LexTran can then come in, boom, and get out and keep moving. You know, schedule is so very important to them. So progress has been made in that regard, and staff's pleased with that. And then we had a discussion item originally on the big box standards on this property. As this property developed and expanded, it started out before the big box requirements existed. Subsequently, they were developed and they were subjected to those standards for a couple of their additions. Dick's Sporting Goods were one. And staff reviewed this and discussed it considerably, and we've handed out a memorandum to you on the big box standards, and it kind of explains staff's conclusion on where we stood on this plan. And the big box standards basically state that when you have a facility, a store in essence, an establishment larger than 80,000 square feet, you will utilize big box standards to evaluate that. And certainly they've done that on this plan with the previous additions, as I mentioned. And we debated and staff and discussed it about whether or not it would apply in this case because they are reducing Sears from a big box to smaller stores. However, staff felt that there was a key statement in your Article 12-8 that governs Big Box that is on the back side of your memorandum that states that these design guidelines are intended to provide professional designers and the Planning Commission with direction for improved development plans. And with that, staff does believe that this plan is in the spirit of the big box requirements. We certainly believe that providing pedestrian access for transit riders and a place for a shelter is very much and very important in keeping with one of the most important aspects of big box guidelines. We also have made a recommendation to the applicant that we believe that they would further meet the spirit of those guidelines by doing something that is very common in most of our big box developments, and that is delineating the entrance with a change in pavers, a change in the material. You hear it most of the time with discussions of Kroger's because they've been in a lot lately and fallen under the big box guidelines, and you may recall that discussion, how we'd like to have them delineate that for pedestrian safety and clearly show the entrance into the mall. We think that would be appropriate as well in this location. In this area, they've actually, without doing the pavement, the entrance has certain characteristics that do help that. the facade changes and design changes in the building, again, that exist and I believe will exist are keeping in the spirit of those guidelines as well. With that, as I stated, staff is recommending approval of the amended plan. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, I've got a couple. First of all, when you started opening, you talked about decommissioning. I thought I heard you say most of the second floor. Is it all the second floor or just part of it? It is the majority of the Sears second floor, and I would say that is an important condition. And thank you for asking me because condition number 11 clearly states addition of timing of and method of decommissioning the second floor. space. Obviously, that can be an enforcement issue, and how that's to be accomplished is of concern. So that is important to the staff that that be worked out and placed on the plan. Okay. You were talking about delineating the entrance. Is that covered under any of these conditions? It is not specifically in a condition. It is a recommendation of your memorandum on the big box. Okay. And then lastly, pedestrian transit, I know it is an issue. You mentioned that they've been working hard. I thought I heard you say they had supplied an exhibit. Can you show us what they're talking about? Do you have that exhibit? Can you? I do actually have an exhibit in a file that we have seen. It's based on work that was done in another big box, basically it shows a sidewalk going down between two parking aisles. In the case of the exhibit, it meanders, which isn't necessarily always the best design because of potential conflict with cars and trucks parking next to it. So there's been some discussions about just having a nice sidewalk, of course ADA compliant, to allow pedestrians to move safely through the parking to the transit side. I'd be delineating a pedestrian sidewalk down a drive-out. Just to give you, not down a drive-out, between. Yeah. Yes. Oh, between them? Between them, yes, sir. Between them. Okay. That's generally done. Okay. Yeah. That way they get to keep their parking. There'll be room for that? They'll have to be designed to do that. Yes, sir. All right. Very good. Any other questions? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. We appreciate being here today. And let me start out first by saying we are in agreement with the staff's revised recommendation for approval. And having said that, let me try to clarify a couple of things that were mentioned. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the second floor. and I think there's about, I believe it's 8,000 square feet plus that will be retained in the second floor, but for one user with internal access to the second floor. In other words, a two-story user on the first floor, and then they'll have internal access to the second floor. So it doesn't open up. There's not general access to the second floor. We have drafted, and I mentioned this in the subdivision committee, that the decommissioning process would be done during the renovation of the Sears space. And it would be completed before occupancy of any of those spaces that would be the removal of the escalators and so forth. the space would be demised off and would not have access except for maintenance, safety, and so forth. It would maintain fire suppression and electricity, but that's it. And that would be the only access. There would be no public access at all to it. So we'll work out those notes with the staff, But that's the concept that I think we've been proceeding on all along. You know, and interestingly, shifting to the big box here a minute, the big box guidelines, I was looking at those the other day and realized as I was looking through the pictures in our design guidelines, over half a dozen of those pictures are Fayette Mall. As representative of the way the design guidelines are intended to be implemented, and one of them is Sears and their entrance. So, again, as staff said, we do not think we're subject to those guidelines for this particular development, but I think you'll find as you visualize the P.F. Chang and the other restaurant out there, you're going to have a broken, with the two new restaurant facilities that will be in this space, you're going to have quite a broken facade. but you're also going to have a main entrance into the interior mall between those two entrances. And we're in complete agreement. Bill asked me this morning if we would be agreeable to delineating the entranceway and so forth. And absolutely. And we have some preliminary design that I shared with him, but we're not ready to share with anybody else yet. It has names on it. But that certainly will be adhered to. As for the transportation and the pedestrian access to the transportation piece, I think Rory has very ably with the mall folks. And by the way, this is Jennifer Greer from CBL in Houston. She's a senior development manager for CBO and in charge of this project. But the – Rory, I don't know if you have a sketch of it or not. You might throw it up there. That might be the easiest way to do it. And you can stand up here and answer any questions if you will. Let me – real quick. The idea is – and this is a concept that's been run by LexTran as well, and they're at this point very pleased with it. We're tweaking it as we speak. But you'd have a bus shelter right here. We'll split this drive aisle right down the middle where the car's nose in so that you would have an area for a sidewalk and a grassy area to keep the cars away from the sidewalk, which would go right down into the center of the field. So the buses then could come in here, out here, or excuse me, in here, out here, come in the wrong spot. There you go. Thank you, Roy. But you can see what I was talking about right there. And it's basically a 24-foot space within which you have a sidewalk. I think I'm reading that correctly, Roy. and sidewalk in a grassy area to keep the cars from intruding into the pedestrian area. So it's our understanding at this point that Lex Tran is very pleased with that, and we think we've got that solved. So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions, but we would appreciate your approval. Thank you. Mr. Penn? Mr. Turner, talk to me about are we going to eliminate the bus stop on Mall Road and just have the one for the whole Fayette Mall? Yes. So in other words, they just come in off of Nixville Road and then go back out. That would be, that's their preference. They don't want to get their buses in one close to the mall, and they don't like getting deep into the mall with those large, particularly the larger buses. So we would have one bus shelter for Fayette Mall, and it would tie into the front door? Yes. Thank you. Yes, exactly. Ms. Bundy. My question is about the buses, too. Obviously, we know we need to get a lot of people in and out of there. Around Macy's, there's a great porch already there. It wouldn't take up maybe more space. Is there a reason why you can't come in that end, come in front of that nice porch and right back out off of Reynolds Road? Actually, that was the way it was done for many, many years. Okay. But that was causing problems, one, both for Macy's and for that close to the building and for the bus company and for the transit company actually getting into the interior part of the mall. But, no, that was actually, if you can visualize those elements, that's a pedestrian waiting area. Excuse me. So, at any rate. Do you need some water? I'm fine. It'll pass. I guess my thinking on it is if it's attached to the building and I realize they don't want to, and I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to get down in there either. I don't want to at Christmas, so I'll stay away. But I guess I'm thinking about the fact that they're in the weather getting to the buses, having to go out there. And again, I was not aware that they had already been doing that. I knew they were on the front, on the Nicholasville Roadside. I was not aware on the Reynolds Roadside. I just was trying to think of a way to keep people out of the weather. But I guess that's not my problem at this point. But I'm trying to make it a little more comfortable. So thank you. Well, again, it's one of those things that has presented some other problems on both sides. So this seems to be the solution. We had done it on the back side with the ring road trying to keep it away, but this seems to be the best solution not only for us but also for Plex Tran. Other questions? I guess, Darby, just to follow up, one with what I was asking and then Ms. Mundy as well. My recollection is that there's parking everywhere there, and I'm trying to figure out how you're going to create that without having compact parking lots or spaces or something like that. Taking out the Sears Automotive Center and realigning the parking through that area let us get to a standard 60-foot when we go from that striped line where the car's nose is stopped. 60-foot, 60-foot, 60-foot. It gives us 18 to park, 24-foot drive-by, which is very standard. The area had about 63-foot. So as we go across the series there, 7 series, I got to pick up 21 feet. so that that was I tightened all that up and that's how we got the extra space in the middle okay thank you other questions no anyone else want to speak on this no I guess with staff I'll go back to as far as the big box guidelines I know we've got this memorandum, but with the conditions, there's nothing referring to big box guidelines or anything like that. So how are we getting to the delineating the entrance? Just by mutual agreement, or do we need anything? Mr. Owens, given the exhibit that's up on the screen, I think your staff will be looking for this type of information on the plan before we certify it, whether there's a condition or not. Okay, very good. Thank you. Anything else? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Penn? Before Mike makes a motion, I wanted to... I had to jump the gun on him. He's getting quick on the trigger here. But what my concern is down the road is that we'll find out that one bus stop at the front of Nicholasville Road for that big a mall just isn't adequate. And I'm not saying we need to hold this plan up because of that. The mall road thing to me has always been a conundrum. I've never known how to handle mall road in the back. Standing waiting on the bus back there looks to me like a good way for your wife to collect life insurance. But I guess my point is this. As you look at that plan and as you rethink it, there might ought to be a plan B for a second bus stop somewhere. That's a long ways for somebody to come if you're back there at Dix or if you're back there in the far corner. And I don't want to hold it up for another bus stop, but I think when you have discussions with Lextran, it just doesn't stand to reason to me with 5,000 parking spaces in as big an area as that is, that having to come almost to Nicholasville Road is not a real hike for some people. And that's just a whatever-it's-worth comment. I'm certainly not advocating what another one ought to be, but my judgment just doesn't believe that one bus stop is enough there, but I may be wrong. Any other statements, discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion, a recommendation of approval of DP 2013-73 with the 15 revised conditions. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy for approval of DP 2013-73 with 15 revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Turner, now that it's over, I did have a question. Is this going to be a parking permit for us? Absolutely. It's only good through January through September. Okay, moving on. Page 6, item G on a DP 2013-19, Brookhaven Subdivision. The staff does have a presentation to bring to us. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. If you turn to page 6, we're looking at DP 2013-19 Brookhaven Subdivision. This is amended final development plan. this plan was originally approved back in March of this year with some retail and restaurant and what they were doing is they were adding an additional retail space up here in the front since that approval they came back and brought in another plan to do a continued discussion and what they wanted to do was remove the retail and restaurant area here make a health and fitness area and then they were going to keep the retail And then we went to the subdivision committee meeting, and we were approved with the 17 conditions that we show on the plan with the revision to 14, 15, and 17, as you can see on the conditions. Since the subdivision committee meeting, they came back again, and they wanted to change this retail area here to a restaurant. And when they had come in with the health and fitness area and the retail, they had a large surplus of parking spaces available in here. With the changing of the retail to the restaurant, it's going to reduce the parking overage by 20, but they still exceed the amount of parking spaces required. The staff still recommends approval with the conditions. changing from the retail to the restaurant and having these 17 conditions that we have here on the plan. If there's any other questions. Any questions? Mr. Pym, you're reaching. Yes, sir. Number 17. Yes, sir. Do we still have to have that? Yes, sir. We're doing that with every new development. because they're changing the retail into the restaurant, so we need to verify that also. But are we going to have required off-street parking? On 17, I was – oh, that's where condition number 17 down here, document division of water quality. They met the – when they brought in the revised plan, they were meeting the parking, the off-street parking. That's why we were able to remove Condition 17 here and come up with a new Condition 17. Any other questions? Mr. Ladenberger, good afternoon. Have you made any changes in the last 24 hours on this? I'm sorry? Have you made any more changes in the last 24 hours? I don't think so. Okay. Maybe within the next five minutes. We're in agreement with the conditions. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Ladenberger? Any questions for anyone? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? We're getting thin out there. If not, I'll close this part of it and entertain a motion. Ms. Blanton. Move approval of DP 2013-19 Brookhaven subdivision with the 17 revised conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval, DP 2013-19 with the revised 17 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. I guess we move on to zoning items. At the bottom of page 7, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 2012-9, something we've seen before. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the Commission. Chairman Owens. This item begins on the top of page 8. It is ZODA 2012-9. And this is something the Commission is reconsidering because we've sent it to Council in February of this year. It's amendments to the B-1 zone and actually various other zones as well. and also Article I and 12 related to changes to the uses in primarily the B1 zone. The council received this after the commission acted in January. They received it in a final report in February of this year. I'm going to direct you to the handout I just provided to the commission. There are four pieces to that. The first is a revised staff report. on the brown sheet the second is the language that's being proposed and its high changes are highlighted in red this is not the entirety of the B1 text amendment that we forwarded to the council it includes the P1 zone the B1 zone the B2 and the B2B chart downtown business zones and then on the last page B B 6 P which is article 12 so that's only a small portion of what we sent to the council from the Planning Commission number three is something that the Commission saw a few weeks ago at our work session it's a synopsis of the current regulations related to rehabilitation homes including the definition similar uses in our ordinance and how they're defined and then and where rehabilitation homes show up in our ordinance. They are in the ag zones, the residential zones, as well as our business zones. And then lastly, we have a staff report from a text amendment in 2004, and this request was, in essence, the same as what the council is sending back to the Planning Commission for consideration today in terms of rehabilitation homes. The council, when they received the text amendment from the Planning Commission in February, they actually sent it or referred it to their Planning and Public Works Committee. That committee has discussed it several times, and in June the committee voted to make two changes to the package of text amendments. The first one has to do with tattoo parlors in our B2B zone, and the second has to do with rehabilitation homes. And the rehabilitation homes were not discussed when the Planning Commission first considered this text amendment. And for that reason, the Department of Law asked that the council basically refer it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The first piece on our page one there has to do with tattoo parlors. and the council suggested rather than having them be prohibited on our B2B zone, that they be conditional uses. And just for frame of reference, the B2B zone is the Lexington Center business zone. It's generally around Rupp Arena, and it actually comes back to about where we are here, but it is one of our primary downtown business zones. The staff really sees no significant issue associated with this particular change. The second change in terms of rehabilitation homes, the commission, when we reviewed it the first time, the staff and the commission both recommended no change to how rehabilitation homes were being regulated. But following the council's planning and public works committee review, the council proposes that rehabilitation homes be conditional uses in our P1 professional office, B1 neighborhood business, B6P zones, as well as, from the trickle-down effect, the B2 and B2A zones. The current ordinance does allow for rehabilitation homes to be a principal permitted use if it's located more than 500 feet from a residential zone in those zones. so implementing the council's recommendation would result in there being no zone where rehabilitation home would be a principal use with the exception of our community center cc zone which is only in the expansion area and there are only five locations where that would occur within the whole county so in reviewing this proposed change the staff believes an issue related to fair housing practices is raised. The regulation of rehabilitation homes was significantly reviewed in 2004 at the request of the council, and there was a small change to the definition at that time that basically excluded any of those people who fall within the definition for persons with disabilities, and that's regulated under KRS 100.982. And at that time, the staff also suggested the current spacing regulations that are in place in our ordinance, as opposed to making them conditional within these same zones. In reviewing the previous case file, some of the information the staff feels is pertinent today. Rehabilitation homes serve a large range of people. They are also of various sizes. And that was one of the reasons a decade ago that rehabilitation homes were suggested to be conditional in some cases, but still principal in others, so conditional when they were closer to the residential neighborhoods. But on the other hand, in most cases in our community, land uses are by right somewhere, and even with restrictions, especially for those people who might be considered disadvantaged. One of the primary issues over a decade ago was compliance with our Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 as well as later the Americans with Disabilities Act. In reviewing that act and researching its implications, the staff found that those individuals who are recovering from addiction are considered disabled, and that is considered a protective class of citizens. While governments have the authority to provide for the protection for the community in terms of health, safety, and welfare, through land use regulations that authority has at times in our country been used to restrict the ability of these individuals to live anywhere in certain communities that they wish. There is case law that protects those individuals, and I think it's important to state that the Federal Housing Act is intended to prohibit the application of special requirements through land use regulations, such as conditional use permits, to have the effect of limiting the ability of individuals to live in a residence of their choice. So given the current case law around these fair housing practices, the staff wants to be clear that it's imperative that ordinance changes balance a legitimate government purpose, such as protecting the general welfare of our citizens, including children, but not exclude housing choices for our protected class of citizens. In terms of our local regulations, rehabilitation homes cover both a protected class, those recovering from addiction, as well as those individuals who are assigned there by requirements for parole. So it's kind of a split. At the Council's Planning and Public Works Committee in June, several council members voiced concern about the possibility of rehabilitation homes specifically locating near our schools or child care centers. And in particular, at least one member opined that rehabilitation homes that house individuals who were convicted of violent or sex offenses should not be allowed to live near, even temporarily, a school or daycare center because of the potential threat to young children. and the staff does believe that that's a legitimate government purpose. Since this was originally postponed by the Planning Commission a month ago, the staff did meet with the Department of Law and reviewed the request as well as some case law, and as a result of that meeting, the staff has various serious reservations about overly restricting a class of citizens that is protected by our federal fair housing, Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. That being said, the staff continues to recommend that there be at least some opportunity for a rehabilitation home as a principal permitted use in our community, and also that adding a 500-foot setback from schools for academic instruction and child care centers would be rational in logic. You may notice that there's not an explicit staff recommendation on our report, and I think that that is because we feel that there's several options. Leaving it the way it is today is an option, as well as the alternative text that we've presented here that would still meet the Federal Fair Housing Act. One option that we are not comfortable with is making it a conditional use in all cases. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Questions? Mr. Pim? Tracy, I'd elaborate a little bit for why you're not comfortable with the conditional use. because this is the individuals that reside in rehabilitation homes are protected in a lot of cases protected class of citizens and if you require things that are can can be considered onerous or the federal fair housing act language i'm not i'm not going to say it exactly right, but if you're going to restrict uses, you have to do it in the least imposing manner. I understand that. I guess I'm going after the wrong way. My only reason for wanting to do a conditional use is so the public knows what's coming in with or without 500-foot notice. In other words, I don't want them to wake up some morning and there's a use that's not, they don't know it's there until it's already there. And the conditional use at least grants a hearing. Now, I don't know how that balances with the Fair Housing Act or whatever, but that's my only concern. I don't mind it being in any of these zones if there's a hearing involved. But that doesn't seem to be the issue. If you think the 500 feet will eliminate those issues, but I hear you saying that it needs to be a permitted use in some area. Is that what I'm hearing you say? The staff is of that opinion, yes. Okay. Is there a recommendation of what area that ought to be? In where it currently is, the professional office and business zones. It's already restricted in our agricultural and residential zones where it's conditional in all cases. So these are our most permissive zones, our business zones, and it seems if they can't be principal anywhere else, this would be where they could. Well, the rehabilitation home is a broad term. It covers a lot of different situations. It does. And they're not all equal. That's true. Ms. Blanton? I have two questions. One, the concern about sex offenders, they're already prohibited, aren't they? Is this not considered living? It is, and that was mentioned at the council's committee, and Council Member Lawless has experienced or done research in that particular. There's a state law that does require separation between schools and playgrounds and so forth, but it only applies to those persons who committed the crime since the law was enacted. And the most recent law was enacted in 2008. So prior to that, if someone committed an offense prior to that, they don't fall under the restriction in terms of living arrangements. So they could live in any location. My other question is, looking at this alternative text, So then it would not be a principal use in the downtown business zone? It actually, in the B2 zone, the first use is those things that are permitted in B1 and P1, they carry forward. So however we treat it in B1, it's automatically treated the same in terms of principal uses. In terms of conditional uses, it doesn't use that same language in terms of automatic carry forward. I think this does a good job of balancing the public safety concerns along with making sure that we are not de facto eliminating rehabilitation homes from the community. We want people to be rehabilitated and get back into society. So I think I hear what you're saying, Mr. Penn, about the public right to know. but by the same token we all know that it puts a lot of pressure on the Board of Adjustments. And when you've got neighbors who come down and unduly influence, I mean, they have a right to have a say in their neighborhood, but we have to make sure that these uses are allowed. And so I think we can't. I'm going to create a concern from the other side. Ms. Plumlee. My concern would be principal use in a neighborhood zone and not in a downtown business zone to be, too. It seems like by the word neighborhood that the connotation would be not to have the homes there just because of it being by the name neighborhood. Just for, I mean, with the distance restriction, this will, it does currently limit it to our large B1 or a large concentration of business zoning or professional office zoning. So there's not, not every B1 would be eligible because it would be within the 500 foot of residential. It would, I think it already significantly restricts it by being 500 feet of a residential. A lot of our B1 property is near residential. Romney Road, I mean, that's surrounded by residential. Chevy Chase, surrounded by residential. So those areas, you wouldn't be able to locate that anyway. It would be in a larger shopping center. We had a request on Buckhorn Drive in a shopping center zone where they did locate there, and there's been no issues. And just for clarification, if it's a principal use in our B1 zone, it continues forward into our B2 zones as well, B2 and B2A. So however it's treated as a principal use in B1 flows down. Tracy, downtown business zone, correct me if I'm wrong, by all means. isn't that kind of mixed as far as residential and business the uses are mixed but the zoning is far less mixed downtown our core downtown is in a business zone so you do have a mixture of uses that's very true but this this particular use is restricted from its proximity to a residential zone, not a residential use. I know there is at least one rehabilitation home downtown, St. James Place, and they are, I'm sure, near residential zoning. I'm not sure if it's within 500 feet or not. And they've been there for decades. Okay. Other questions? Thoughts? Concerns? More discussion. Anyone else in the audience wants to speak? I think this poor person is waiting. He's been very patient for one thing, I'm sure. Okay. If there's no other questions, wishes, anyone ready for a motion? Ms. Blanton. Move approval of ZOTA 2012-9 amendments to the B-1 zone with the alternative text for rehabilitation homes as recommended by staff. And then do I need to say anything about the tattoo? Yeah, if you're okay with the change for the amended tattoo parlor language. Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval with staff alternative text and the language for our tattoo parlors. No discussion in regards to the motion. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. You're welcome. Next, I believe, would be Ms. Barb Rackers. and we've got two public facility reviews. I think the first one is number six, which is do whatever you like. Perfect. We appreciate his patience. Okay, our first one today is the second one on the agenda, which is item B under commission items. It is PFR 2013-8, and it's a request made by Fayette County Public Schools for Tates Creek High School, which is at 1111 Center Parkway. They're asking for a permanent van tower for the high school. And it's kind of hard to see, but the property is outlined kind of like so. So this is the school property outlined in black. Around like this. We've got Center Parkway here. Green Tree Road is here. New Circle Road is up in this area, and Armstrong Mill Road is down in this area. The property is owned AU, and the project area for the project itself and the high school itself is much smaller than the entire property. The entire property is 64 acres in size. What they're asking to do is to construct a 45-square-foot van tower, which will be 9 by 5, and it'll be on a 121 square foot concrete pad. It'll be in a grass space next to the school near the practice area. And, Bill, if you could put the next one up, please. Okay. I can't see it on there. Right there. Okay, I was going to say it's upside down. This is the area right here. This is the high school. This is the area where the band tower is going to be. and this is actually their practice area. There's a parking lot or parking area that goes between here. It will actually be in the grass area next to the school. And the towel will be about 36 feet tall, and it will only be used by the high school band directors and staff, and it will be used during marching band season, which is mid-July through early November. They practice five to six times per week, Monday through Saturday, and they go from three to six hours at a time, and they practice between 8 in the morning and 7 at night generally. There won't be any student access to the towers. It will be locked when it's not in use. Occasionally there will be a videographer on site who will record rehearsals for band practices. That will only be when one of the band directors is present, though. There won't be any lights on the tower. and as with all other requests by the public school system, there is nothing in the comprehensive plan that is in opposition to this. The goals and objectives in the text apply and or support that project and those are all listed on pages 2 and 3 of your staff report. The land use element of the plan recommends the property for public education and that applies to all Fayette County public school facilities. It also applies to extracurricular activities as much as academics. We find this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan, goals, objectives, and text, as well as the land use element. And we have one recommendation. That would be that any applicable permits be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to commencing construction and prior to use of the band tower. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. And Andrew Moore is here. He's the architect. Thank you. Any questions for Barb Reckers? Any questions from Mr. Moore? Would Mr. Moore like to come forward and say anything to be official and get on record and let the school know that you were here? I was just going to say we're planning for the Tuesday planterview meeting to get a building permit, so we're agreeable to that condition. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Planning Commission? If not, as you know, this would be a motion to simply state that this is in compliance with the goals and objectives, and we'll move forward. So anyone interested in a motion? Yes, sir. So moved, is that your motion? That is your motion? Yes, I'm open to approval. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded, recognizing this is in compliance with the goals and objectives with staff recommendations. This is PFR 2013-8. Please vote. It passes. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Okay, next one is item A, PFR 2013-6, and it's also a request by Fayette County Public Schools for property at 1150 Passage Mound Way, which is in the expansion area. This is property right here. This is Polo Club Boulevard. We've got the interstate here. Winchester Road is up towards the north, and Todd's Road is down south of the property. It's a 15-acre property, and it is vacant right now. It's zoned EAR2. It's an expansion area 2B, and it's on part of what is known as the new market property. It was purchased by the school system in early July for the purpose of building an elementary school, and there is nothing in the 2007 comp plan or the 2013 goals and our objectives in opposition to this. The land use element for the property is, the recommendation for the property is expansionary or residential, but there is no conflict as far as any kind of thing being out of sync with the land use recommendation because public schools or schools are principal permitted uses in the expansionary area in that zone. So there's no conflict there. There are several goals and objectives as well as text that apply to this and or support the project. All the 2007 goals and objectives are listed from page 2 to the top of page 4. And because the 2013 goals and objectives are streamlined to allow for more general applicability to development, there's only one objective that applies to this, and that's Objective D of Theme F, Goal 1, goal one, which is to collaborate with other agencies in Lexington Valley County to meet local standards in order to achieve compatible developments and accomplish the community's vision as articulated in Destination 2040. In the expansion area master plan, there is a statement that the school board is actively considering several school sites, and that would be in the location or the vicinity of the expansion areas 1, 2A, 2B, and 2C. and it says that one or more school sites of sufficient size, which would be 15 acres, are looked for to accommodate an elementary or middle school within the expansion areas and they may be required to meet the needs of these expansion areas in particular. In the community design element of the expansion area plan, there is also a statement that directly applies to this specific property. It states that development in the expansion area should be organized into a series of discrete neighborhoods and communities which are linked to one another by greenways, trails, paths, and roads. And Bill, if you could put that next exhibit up, please. This will show what I'm talking about. This is the greenway trail and path map for the area. This is the property right here. This is the Brighton Rail Trail along here. We've got residential neighborhoods here, here, and down here so far. this blue line that goes all the way down like this is a recommended trail connection from schools to neighborhoods. So this one statement in the Expansion Area Master Plan directly applies to this. And it would provide a good walking access from the surrounding residential properties, even on the other side of the interstate. It would be a good opportunity for the school system to be a participant in implementing the community design element of the Expansion Area Master Plan. and we recommend that they seriously consider doing that as part of their design of the property. The Greenway Master Plan is also an adopted element of the Comprehensive Plan and it references schools in the goals, objectives, and the text. It emphasizes the importance of providing greenways and trails to allow for provision of various modes of transportation from residential neighborhoods to places such as schools and community centers and shopping areas. In the Greenway Master Plan, there are two goals. One is the connectivity goal and one is the transportation goal that also provide direct support for them doing a path along that property line right through here. The connectivity goal is to develop and implement a Greenway system that links neighborhoods to each other and to schools, parks, cultural facilities, workplaces, natural areas in the region. that has a related objective to implement that. And then the transportation goal is to develop and implement a greenway system that provides opportunities for alternative transportation modes, such as bicycling and pedestrian use. And there is also an objective related to that that will implement that. And you have heard this a bazillion times with every one of the public facilities we use for the Fayette County Public Schools, but they intend to be a world-class school system. That's one of their goals by the year 2020. And part of the goal includes new construction as well as complete renovation of their existing facilities to bring them up to certain design standards and to make them state-of-the-art facilities for their students. Since 2007, three new schools have been built, and there are plans for others in the works. And since 1996, since the 1996 comprehensive plan, an elementary school has been planned for this area, not specifically for this property, but for expansion area to be. and this purchase of the property will help to implement that goal. This public facility review only relates to the purchase of the property, but since it's for the specific intent of building an elementary school, we don't need to do another public facility review once they get their design in order. They're not even in the design phase yet. This is just for the purchase of the property. We find this to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan all the way back to the 1996 plan, goals, objectives, text, and the land use element, as well as the expansion area master plan and the greenway master plan. And we recommend that the trail connection be part of the design of the property, and that will help to implement the expansion area master plan as well as the greenway master plan. And I sent a copy of the staff report to Fayette County Public Schools with this recommendation, so they're aware of it. Whether they do it or not is another thing, but they're aware of it. So if you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them. and there is no one here to represent them for this. Any questions for Barb? Which right along here? That's the interstate. That's Interstate 75. And then Todd's Road is, like I said, Todd's Road is down here somewhere, and Winchester Road is up here. This is the Brighton Rail Trail along there. Barbara, has the school board already purchased this property? Yes, July. Other questions? If not, yes. Many? Yes. I move that we accept the staff's recommendation and findings for PFR 2013-6 Fayette County Public Schools. Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of PFR 2013-6. No further discussion. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, Ms. Rackers. Thank you. Any other commission items? Staff items? Just a couple of brief announcements, Mr. Chairman. First of all, you will be having a work session next week in this room, as usual. The main thing I wanted to announce is a reminder to the commission and the community of our comprehensive plan public input meeting tonight, the second one we are conducting this week, which will be at 7 o'clock p.m. at the Village Branch of the Lexington Public Library, which is at 2185 Versailles Road, corner Village Drive and Versailles Road. And we had a good turnout at the Tuesday night meeting, and we're hoping for a good turnout again tonight. And everyone's welcome to attend. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Second. Motion is made and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Thank you.