Singing in the choir, me I heard another song I caught wind and hit the road running Lord, I've been a long time gone Babe, I'm a long time gone Lord, I ain't had a prayer since I don't know when Long time gone And it ain't coming back again I'm going to be a star Now me and Delia singing every Sunday, watching the children in the garden grow. We listen to the radio to hear what's cooking, but the music ain't got no soul. Now they sound tired, but they don't sound haggard. They got money, but they don't have cash. They got junior, but they don't have pain. I think, I think, I think the rest is a long time gone. No, I ain't hit the roof since I don't know when. Long time gone, and it ain't coming back I said long time gone, no I ain't up to porn since I don't know when Long time gone, and it ain't coming back again I said a long time, a long time, a long time gone Oh, it's been a long time Long time, long time, long time gone Oh, it's been a long time gone Long time, long time, long time gone, yeah You ain't nothing but a hound dog, girl You're crying all the time You ain't nothing but a hound dog, girl Crying all the time Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit And you ain't no friend of mine Well, they said you was high class, well, that was just a lie. Yeah, they said you was high class, well, that was just a lie. Yeah, you ain't never caught a rabbit and you ain't no rhythm of mine. You ain't nothing but a highland dogger, crying all the time. You ain't nothing but a highland dogger, crying all the time. Well, you ain't never gonna wrap it And you ain't no friend of mine Oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh Well, they said you was high class Well, that was too wild Yeah, they said you was high class Well, that was just a lie Yeah, you ain't never gonna have it And you ain't no friend of mine Oh, oh, oh, oh Well, it's not just a lie Well, that was just a lie You know there's that juice high-classed Well, that was just a lie Yeah, you ain't never caught a rabbit You ain't no friend of mine You ain't nothing but a hound or a dog Crying all the time You ain't nothing but a hound or a dog Crying all the time Well, you ain't never caught a rabbit You ain't no friend of mine You ain't nothing but a rabbit Thank you. I can't keep up with what's been going down I think my heart must just be slowing down Among the human beings In their designer jeans Am I the only one who hears the screams? And the strangled cries of lawyers in love God sends his spaceships to America, the beautiful They land at six o'clock and there we are, the dutiful Eating from TV trays Tuned into happy days Waiting for World War III While Jesus slays To the mailing calls of lawyers in love 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 Oh, my God. Now we've got our school We've even got the moon And I hear the USSR will be over soon As vacation land for lawyers in love Lawyers in love Oh, shall I do? Oh, shall I do? Oh, shall I do? Oh, shall I do? Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We'll call this meeting to order for December 12, 2013. I'd like to welcome everyone that is here today. First on the order agenda is the approval of minutes for November 21, 2013 that were emailed to the Commission members. I have not heard of any. If they are, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I will entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move approval of the minutes for November 21. Second. All right. Motion has been made and seconded for approval for all those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. At this point, we'll move on down to any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Mr. Simpson, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson, and I'm here for item, page five, item B, Springdale subdivision. I've recently retained in this case, and there's some issues concerning the location of a dumpster or not to have a dumpster or Herbie the Kirby's or not to have Herbie the Kirby's. I sent a notice out last night to the neighbors on Mitchell Avenue who have expressed concerns about this development plan as I understand it. I just talked with one of the officers just a few seconds ago, explained to her that we would certainly be willing to meet with the neighbors before we did any revisions on our plan to listen to what their concerns were. So those could be factored into our revised development plan that we would come back to this body for. in January. I understand your all's meeting is actually going to be on the 16th. I had mistakenly thought it was the 9th, and that's what I had told the neighbors. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be in town the 16th. So I was trying to see if we could, if the Planning Commission would postpone this until the Zoning Committee meeting, which would be on the 31st of January. That would give us plenty of time to meet with the neighbors, listen to what they had to say, make our development plan, share it back with the neighbors, respond to any questions, and then come back before this body on the 31st. I know there are zoning issues that day, but that's what we would request. Mr. Chairman, that would actually be the 30th, Thursday the 30th, I believe. Okay, thank you, Mr. Simpson. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Yes, ma'am, please come forward. Good afternoon. I'm T. Bergman. I'm Secretary of the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization, and I also have lived on Mitchell Avenue 600 block for 28 years. The postponement, I'm not going to oppose it, but I want to ask that there be some reassurance that the neighborhood issues be addressed and at least taken into consideration. I have heard you say that you do not want to be the referees in this kind of a situation, and we would rather you not end up being the referees. So I want assurance that some of our issues are going to be looked at. My other concern today is the fact that I am going to be out of town on the 31st. Now, you all remember how frequently this issue has been before you, And I have been here every time waiting to speak to it. And then it's going to be on the 31st when I'm going to be out of town. So I would like to have it actually delayed until February. Thank you. Let me ask you one quick question. You mentioned that you were going to be out of town on the 31st. Yes. I believe our meeting date, as Mr. King indicated, is on the 30th. Does that make a difference? 30th. Yes, I'll still be out of town. I won't be back until the 4th. Okay. Real quick, anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this request? Okay, Mr. Simpson, real quick, do you think you'd come up with a February date? I think in light of our history, and if I understand it, postponing, I think that would be acceptable. February. That date would be February 13th. Okay. Thank you, Mr. King. So February 13th, Mr. Simpson? That'd be fine. Ms. Teague? Okay. So with that, now the request is for, I'm sorry, you said February 13th? Yeah. 2014. So, if there's no further discussion in regards to this request for postponement, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of DB 2013-90 to the February 13th meeting. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until February 13th, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. motion passes thank you mr. Simpson thank you miss Bergman any other requests for postponements or withdrawals good afternoon sir good afternoon i'm nick nicholson here on behalf of the harvey property it's on page five item c we would also like to request a postponement until the january 16th meeting we are working on a new development plan that we think resolves a lot of the staff's issues with this and I would like a chance to work with them a little bit longer. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, any questions from the commission or we can't have a motion? Ms. Plumlee? I move postponement of DP 2013-96 Harvey property to January 16th. Yes, Your Honor. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement until January 16th, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? And then staff, you have something? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, staff would like to direct the Planning Commission's attention. To page four of your agenda under development plans, item A, this is DP 2013-74, Glen Creek, also known as Dove Creek, amended for property located at 1145 and 1156 Appian Crossing Way. Staff has received a communication from the applicant requesting an indefinite postponement of this plan. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement indefinitely of DP 2013-74. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for indefinite postponement of DP 2013-74. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Okay. Seeing none at this time, I would ask the commission to see if they have any objection to take an item out of order. That would be for the purchase development annual report that I think is on page 7 of your agenda. I'd like to do this first, if we can. If there's no objection, Ms. Overman, please come forth. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Beth Overman. I'm the acting director of the Purchase of Development Rights Program, and I also have our board chair, Greg Bibb, here with us today. and we just want to give you the report and we will keep it brief. We know you have a long agenda, but if you all will look at this sheet, I will walk you through it. Things are going well in the PDR program. We are at 56.25% of the goal of achieving 50,000 acres over a 20-year period. We have 28,120 acres total right now. There are 242 farms. 133 of those are equine. 96 are general agriculture. And 13 are other. And other is things like landscaping materials, sod, trees, that type of thing. We have 39 donated conservation easements. And then last fiscal year, there were five easements purchased. Those are all listed there. There was one conservation easement donated. It's listed here as well. And one withdrawn application along with the reason. And then moving on to this fiscal year, FY 2014, we have six easements purchased thus far, and we are still in acquisition mode. We have one withdrawn application along with the reason listed. And for next fiscal year, we have 38 applications totaling over 2,400 acres. Then we'll go to the next, to the map here. In the left-hand corner, it shows you the acreage here, the 28,128. Down in the bottom left-hand corner is the map legend. And you will see that in the dark green is the PDR, Protective Farms, and the ones that are dark green with the black lines around are the PDR farms under contract to close. And that is it. Do you all have any questions? Any questions for Ms. Elberman? Mr. Penn? Given our current rate of funding, when I see these on your first page, when I see these farms that are 38 applications for 2,465 acres, in your estimation, if we had the same level of funding next year we had this year, which meant $2 million in match two by the Fed, how much of those 38 applications could we accommodate? Do you know? This year, the max we will get to is number 10 in the farm with this funding. So we probably would not get much further next year if it was the same level of funding. But you'd get 8 to 10 farms depending on the size. Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? Thank you. I need a motion to approve this. It's just a report. Okay. Thank you. There's no other questions. Thank you, Ms. Overman. Okay. Now, Mr. Selle, if you would, please take us to the consent agenda. Be glad to, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Most of our final subdivision plans listed on your agenda this afternoon do qualify for consideration at this time as part of the approval of your consent agenda. The very first one appears on the first page of your agenda, Item A. It's Plan 2013-117F, David Tucker Sr., Ann Tucker, and David Tucker Jr. This PLAAD involves property at 1031 North Cleveland Road. Because this PLAAD is in an agricultural rural zone, an affidavit is required to indicate the signposting on the property. The staff has reviewed that affidavit and appears to be in order. the next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda page 2 item b plan 2013-124f blackford property phase 1 unit 5c for property at 3105 blackford parkway the next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda page 2 item c plan 2013-125f Also the Blackford property, Phase 1. This is Unit 5B, located at 3105 Blackford Parkway. On page 2, Item E, this plan is on your consent agenda. It's Plan 2013-127F, Tuscany Unit 3A, for property located on Old Rosebud Road. On page 3, Item F, this plan is also on your consent agenda. Plan 2013-128F Coventry, also known as Belmont Farms, Unit 8. This involves property with an address of 2550 Georgetown Road. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda. Plan 2013-131F New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit D, Lots 9, 29, and 30. This is an amended final plat involving property at 1321 Deerhaven Lane. The last subdivision plat on your agenda is page 3, item H, plan 2013-137F, an amended final plat for the center point property located at 100 West Main Street. In addition, there are two development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on page 6, item D of your meeting agenda. It is DP 2013-97, New Market Property, Unit 7, and a portion of Unit 1. This property has an address of 1201 and 1501 Deerhaven Lane and a portion of 1501, also 1321 Deerhaven Lane. This plan, like the other, requires the posting of a sign, and the applicant's engineer has submitted the required affidavit for the posting of that sign, which appears in order. In addition, special findings are necessary for the Commission to approve this plan, and you should have at your place a memorandum dated today from Mr. Tom Martin of the staff regarding the EAMP compliance for this plan would denote the finding being the very last sentence of that memorandum. The final item on your consent agenda is on page 7, item G of your meeting agenda. It is DP 2013-107, Coldstream Park, Lot 1. This involves property at 920 Citation Boulevard. The Commission may recall this is a property address that the Commission reviewed at your last meeting, and there were citizens present at that meeting who had an interest in this development plan. If they are here today and would like this plan pulled, or if a member of the Commission would like any of these items pulled from the consent agenda at this time, this would allow the Commission to consider them with full discussion, probably in the order as they appear on the agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Selle. Anyone in the audience wish to have any one of these items pulled from the consent agenda to be heard today? Yes, please come forward. Hi. My name is Chris Jones, and I live in the Belmont Farm subdivision. I'd like to have DP 2013-107 removed for further review based on the plans that are set up for how the distribution center will be laid out next to the subdivision. Okay, and you did say that was DP 2013-107, Coldstream Park? Yes, Coldstream Park. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Hi. My name is Elizabeth Booth. I live at 1940 Deerhaven Lane, and I'm just trying to figure out the status, how this works. I would like to discuss the DP2013-97 new market property. So does that mean that I'm asking for it to get pulled for discussion? Yes, ma'am. Yes, I would like that. And can the plan 2013-131F under the final subdivision plans, can that also get pulled for discussion? If you like. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else wish to hear one of these from the consent agenda? A commission member wish to hear any one of these items from the consent agenda? If not, seeing that we have three that's been pulled, plan 2013-131L, new market property phase one, the final subdivision plan, and then the two development plans at the bottom, DP-2013-97, new market property, and DP-2013-107, Coldstream Park being pulled. we have one, two, three, four, five, six items remaining. I'd entertain a motion for the approval of the consent agenda with the exception of those three. Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Pull in the three items you mentioned. Okay. Thank you. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second. Motion been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy for the approval of the consent agenda with those three exceptions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. We will take the remaining items in order of the agenda, which we will start first on page two. It's plan 2013-126-L, Doc Farrell Properties. You do have a revised staff recommendation on a blue sheet before you, as well as findings for a waiver that is on a white sheet, a stapled white sheet before you. Let the staff get set up. Thank you. We received a revised plan, so we were able to come up with a list of revised conditions for this. This is Plan 2013-126F, Dockferrell property. It's an amended final record plan to subdivide one lot into two lots, and they'll create a total of three lots because we have an access easement going over one. The property located at 1120 Manchester Street, which is west of downtown, heading out Manchester, just past the bridge and the railroad tracks. The subdivision committee had reviewed this plan, and they had recommended approval. And with the revisions that have been made, the staff still feels we can recommend approval with the ten conditions that we have listed now. The first seven are just our typical sign-offs. Condition number nine, it says certification of a minor or final development plan amended. We have received that plan yesterday to amend the development plan because when subdividing the property, we were going to have a property line going through a building on the previous development plan, but now they hand us a development plan that has the buildings as built, and they can put this line through there because there's two separate buildings instead of one. So we'll be reviewing that prior to the certification of this plan. We also have two other conditions, provided the Planning Commission makes a finding for the use of the access easement and also provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver to Article 6-6B of subterranean regulations, and Tom's going to give you some more information on those. If you all have any other questions. any questions for miss golf no thank you mr martin good afternoon mr chairman members of the planning commission as miss golf stated there is a finding required on this plan for an access easement as well as a waiver you can see here here's the plat that is being proposed with the railroad along this line and this as well and here access is from manchester street across the railroad into the property this is an existing access easement as miss scott stated we have required an amended minor development plan to assure staff and the planning commission there was no conflict with the property it is developed property you can see the buildings here is represented here's the access easement that will serve the lots as proposed we have distributed to you a blue sheet with the findings for the access easement again it is an existing access easement this is not an unusual circumstance it exists it'll serve the property it's zoned i2 there's There's no frontage requirements, but obviously access is necessary to the property. So staff has submitted, pardon me, I said blue, that was your revised recommendation, the findings on a white sheet, that we are recommending the findings to you. The waiver request that you have before you is virtually identical to the one you had for the Chevy Chase Plaza. You may recall with the developed commercial area with buildings on each lot with a sewer service. This is a very similar situation. This is a fully developed piece of property. They have sanitary sewer to the structures, to the properties. They are existing. They function. But the urban county government does not want to take over responsibility of this private system per se and have to deal with it very exactly the same as the Chevy Chase Place situation. So in reviewing it and in discussing it with our Division of Engineering, staff is recommending approval of the waiver subject to the conditions that you'll see on your waiver report, which is the depiction of the appropriate easements and maintenance notes to see to it that the system is maintained appropriately by the private property owners. And again, staff is recommending approval of that waiver to you today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? No, thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Anything to add? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commission. I'm Steve Garland with Integrated Engineering. I have with me our landscape architect, Katie Pentecost. I have nothing to add. We're in agreement of the staff's findings and of all the recommendations and conditions. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn. You're creating a new access easement to get back to that third lot? All right. Take your mic. Take it. There you go. Just pull it here. Correct. The existing access easement was created in 1984, comes across, comes to this property line and stops. This parcel of land is being created to eventually go to this person, but they'll have to bring that in separately. So one of the conditions was to bring an access easement so this lot, as is, does have access to the property does not become a landlocked parcel so that'll be a permanent access on number two plot or what you want to call correct okay thank you and it is clear of all the structures that's on the site thank you any other questions from the commission no thank you sir anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan did you have anything else to add sir okay anyone else in in the audience wish to speak? Seeing none, if there's no further questions from the commission, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for a motion. The waiver is one of the conditions on the revised staff recommendation. Yes, Mr. Travis. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of the revised staff recommendations for plan 2013-126F and also approval of the findings for the access easement and for the waiver. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the plan 2013-126F with the revised staff recommendations. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for coming Next would be Plan it's on page three plan 2013 131 elf new market property phase one unit D And. Thank you. Ms. Goddard, let me ask, since we have the final subdivision plan and development plan, would it be appropriate to go ahead and present them both together? That's kind of what we were thinking we were going to ask. We have both of them up there for your review at this current time. I was going to go over the record plan first, and then Tom was going to review over the development plan. Thank you. That'd be fine. This is a RECOPLAT 2013-131F New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit D, Lots 9, 29, and 30. They have a revised preliminary development plan in, and therefore they're coming back to record three of the lots from that preliminary development plan. The subdivision committee had – I'm sorry, I should go back. It's located off of Deer Haven, which is in the expansion area. So that will allow you all to know Polo Club and Deer Haven, where it's located. The subdivision committee recommended approval with 11 conditions, the first seven dealing with just utility sign-offs and other sign-offs from governmental agencies. Condition 8 was the exactions, addition of exaction information, certification of development plan, DP 2013-97. prior to the recordation of this plan, which is the other plan that we have up currently for your review. Review by technical committee because this plan was a late file, so therefore we will be taking this back to technical next week. And then remove the billable area. Resolve, I'm sorry. Resolve the billable area on lot 30. On lot 30, there seems to be an easement. There seems to be an easement that runs along the one side of the property, and there were some concerns that what was left in the distance across the property, there wouldn't be enough room to build a home. So we asked for them to resolve, and I believe they had agreed to bring us in a copy of how the house sat on the lot with the site plan showing that information for us to show that it could fit. Are there any other questions? Any questions, Ms. Galt? No. Do you want to have Tom present the development plan now? I believe so. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, The development plan that you see on the board before you is on page 6 of your agenda, DP2013-97. It is New Market Property Unit 7 and a portion of Unit 1. This is an amended area of the New Market Property that is located here. It is Polo Club Boulevard. In this location, Deerhaven Lane, which is a rural road, is in this location, the interdiction being somewhat up in this area. This is a developed area of New Market down in here of single-family homes. This is Stolen Horse Trace, which serves as the primary frontage for this proposed development. The plan that you see before you is amending one that you recently approved. The one that you saw last and approved had a street system through here and had single-family lots on stolen horse trace, had single-family lots in this location with access back into here to that street. And then there were townhouses. You may recall there was a series of townhouses on this little leg down through here. This plan, in essence, removes the townhouses, reduces the number of single-family lots, and you can see now they're just proposing single-family lotting for this area of the new market development. This is an open space area. This is a scenic design requirement that is part of your expansion area that is to protect the viewshed and the quality of the rural roads. Deerhaven is one of those roads that is specifically in your expansion area plan. Again, this is the area that is being amended. They're proposing longer, deeper, single-family lots. you can see from your agenda that there were the standard sign-offs required of a development plan slash preliminary subdivision plan in an expansion area, which included two resolve issues, the first being resolve the buildable area on Lot 30, which Ms. Galt alluded to on the plat as well. There's an exhibit that you see above that staff received demonstrating that they could, in fact build a house on the lot in question. And that would be this lot on the plat. And here it is on the plan. And you can see there was an access easement in this location. We felt may constrict the lot because they have their own development standards, as you know, in the AMP, and there's also side yard setbacks. So staff just wanted to be sure that they had a buildable lot there. But we believe that exhibit clearly demonstrates that that is a buildable lot, and they've addressed that condition on the plan. There was also a discussion about resolving the maintenance and access to the proposed green space. Again, this is a setback that is required by your EAMP. It is green space. It's not a green way, per se, but it's open space. It's green space. It will have to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. and access to it by other folks, not just people who have their backyards on it, but folks in this part of the neighborhood. There's ample access along the public right-of-way into this green space for other members of the homeowners association to enjoy. So they will have to put a note on the plan to the effect as to who will maintain that area. The memo that we handed out to you on the finding that it complies with the AMP, again, as I stated, this is a plan that basically reduces the number of single-family dwelling units on this property by, I believe it was 26 units. The density in this particular area is now just over two units per acre. Overall, in Newmarket, they do meet the EAR2 density, which is three to six units. At this point, they are somewhat over three units per acre in the overall density for Newmarket. With that, staff is recommending approval of this plan. We are recommending approval of the record plat as well. And as I stated, we have given you a memo stating that we believe that they do comply with the AMP. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Ms. Martin? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, refresh my mind. In subdivision, we discussed the water quality CAP requirement. Yes, ma'am. requirement and even though this is grandfathered in should that be a condition stated as such in the condition yes ma'am miss plumley this area is actually exempt from the cap program and that was discussed i believe at the subdivision committee and that's why you don't see a condition on this particular plan but but i'm suggesting that we need to have a statement that it is exempt If that's the pleasure of the Planning Commission, I'm sure that we could do that. And again, as I'm stating today and for the record, that area is exempt from that program. Let me interject just a little bit on that. I did speak with Charlie Martin on this, actually on other situations as well. And, yes, the EA2 area is grandfathered in. He offered the fact that he saw no reason, he had no problem with a statement from his office just simply stating that on these situations. And for documentation, considering the fact that we're trying to get out of hot water, so to speak, that documentation might be a good idea. on that. And your planning staff would welcome that. Okay. It would be a similar statement that's shown on the other ones. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, applicant. Mr. Chairman, before you hear from Mr. Murphy, I would just repeat again for the record that we have received the required affidavit for the sign that's required. And just for the commission's benefit, we'll show you what that sign looks like. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing the Clark family, which is the developers of these portions of the new market property. And we talked to Ms. Booth real briefly before we got up here, but she'll be addressing you directly. But I just wanted to explain what we're doing here. The main reason we're here is because of this development plan, which is a combined development plan and preliminary subdivision plan. And for this area, we're reconfiguring. As the staff has told you, we're reducing somewhat, reducing the number of units that we have on here. There is an approved, certified development plan on this property already, but we're changing the configuration here. and as you know the fact that it's a preliminary subdivision plan means that once you approve that we can go and get our permits for laying the sewer line that'll serve most of these lots this street is already in it was built when the subdivision on the other side was built or the lots on the other side the streets in but we have to get a sewer in here along the street as well so we're doing it just to reconfigure the lot on this property now the plat which is actually before the development plan on your agenda but can only be certified after after the staff certifies that we're doing this plat showing the three lots because these three lots have sewers to them already right down here it's the gap in here which doesn't have the sewers so what we're asking is approval of the plat so once the development plan is approved we can go in and plat this and sell these as building lots we have a builder who wants these lots so we want to go ahead and record these because they're ready to record because the sewer is available the streets available all utilities are available on here staff mentioned to you the billable area on the lot and we did submit that drawing to you and as i mentioned at the subdivision committee the house that was shown on that drawing that mr martin showed you is not a stripped down version of a house it's a house which has been built in this new market and and Clark property area about 20 times in this area. So it's a standard house for this subdivision. That lot is wider than a typical lot. A typical lot in this subdivision is about 40 feet. So I just wanted to mention that to you. And the staff mentioned the issues about the green space already, so I won't dwell on those. So I just wanted to mention those facts to you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Yes, ma'am. If you would, give us your name and address for the record. Hi, my name is Elizabeth Booth. I live at 1940 Deerhaven Lane. When we're talking today, Deerhaven Lane used to be called Walnut Hill-Chilesburg, so the names are interchangeable. It's the same road. Thank you, first of all, for bringing these both up together because I was rather confused why they were divided, so it's going to make it a lot easier for you. I've lived at 1940 Deerhaven Lane since 1993. In that time, my husband David and I, we've been very involved in the development and planning in that area. We've been to countless planning meetings, city council meetings, and I'm very knowledgeable of the rules and guidelines set in place for this area outlined in the EAMP. To start off just very generally, I feel that any decision on this parcel needs to be postponed today because the public has not had access to the plans. On your website, there are listed two sets of plans for review today. The DP2013-97, you can pull up in view, which is that one. But unfortunately, plan 2013-131F revised, this one over here, cannot be pulled up. So people have been unable to look at it online. The revision page is locked to the public, and for that simple reason, I think that you should postpone it to get it unlocked so people can see it. Simple as that. I know that may not happen, so this may be my only time to talk, so I'm going to continue. How many of you are familiar with this? Expansion Area Master Plan? Okay, very, very important for what we're talking about today. This has been my Bible since 1996. It is the rules that are set in place by the Lexington-Faylor Urban County government that governs how development must be followed in the sensitive area of the EAMP. And I'm here today to remind everyone of these guidelines and ask you, the planning board, to enforce them. The area we're talking about today is very sensitive. This land abuts a designated rural scenic road. There are only five of these designated roads in the EAMP in Fayette County. As stated in the Expansion Area Master Plan of 1996, page 32, the purpose for this designation is that they need to be protected as a community resource. There are special limitations imposed on these roads to protect the rural scenic character of the area. You can see pages 39 through 40, and I make copies so you can look at them. And also note the overall intention of the master plan is to free developers from traditional zoning, which tend to produce monotonous subdivisions where housing types, density, and size are similar, resulting in neighborhoods that lack social, cultural, or economic diversity. Wow. In my opinion, this is pretty monotonous and not the overall intent, but it's just my opinion. So Deerhaven Lane, Walnut Hill, Childsburg, is the road that goes right along here. And it's a designated rural scenic road. And this is the first piece of development brought in front of you that abuts the rural scenic road. The biggie about that is that there is a 200-foot setback along the length of Deer Haven. So there's 200 feet off of Deer Haven all the way along it that no development can happen. Page 79, no development shall be permitted within 200 feet of DeLong, Athens, Boosboro, and Walnut Hill-Chilesburg Road, also known as Deer Haven. So two things I ask you to look at, remembering that no building is allowed within the 200-foot setback, is lot number 25. I guess I should have left this up. Lot number 25 is this lot right here. which is in the plan in front of you today, you can see 15 feet of it is in the 200-foot setback. Why? Remember, these rules were made in 1996. Please have the developer follow them. This is setting precedence, continuing down the road. We can see here today, starting with the developer, and the desire to encroach upon that 200-foot setback all the way down the road. It's a mile down the road, and there's people not even living here yet. We're already starting to plan development in that setback. If we don't do something today, there's going to be a huge problem in the future. What I am asking today is that you require the developer to put in a transparent horse fence or a dry stone fence, it's outlined in our good old EAMP, all the way down 200 feet off of Deerhaven Lane. That way it will determine, it will clearly define to all of the homeowners where their back property ends. Otherwise, we're going to get patios, we're going to get tree forts, we're going to get trampolines, we're going to get other fences. People that look out their backyard and they think, I own all the way there, they're going to start using that land. It's happened along the bike trail that was recently put in. Please don't let it happen to Deerhaven Lane. And if that happens, how am I supposed to police it? Who's supposed to police it? There's already things that happened today that aren't being policed. And, you know, if we put that fence in, it's clean, it's easy, it's simple. There's no, it's one side of the fence or the other. It's very simple and clean. So I asked if you could do that. one thing that I drove out there today and I'm just confused because number nine lot number nine is brought in front of you today and I guess I'm just confused why building has already started on it there's a foundation and I just it comes back to the policing there's building already started They're digging. There's a foundation. I invite you to drive out there and see. Developers push their limits. It's your job to make them follow the laws set in place. That's all I'm asking. Please have them follow the basic rules that were set in place. Okay, now on to the actual plans. I'm sorry I'm taking so much time, but there is so much history here. It's been going on for 16 years, and it's important history, Especially for many of the people who have lived on that road, we just want to make sure it's right. We are agricultural rural right across the street. This is high density. We want to make sure it flows. This exact parcel has been brought in front of you again and again, and I think we really need to look at this plan to make sure everything is in order and that it's correct. Let's take our time and make sure it's in compliance. This is setting precedence. As this may be the first time many of you are looking at this parcel of land, it isn't for me. I have seen this exact parcel of land brought before you again and again. I have blueprints with me. Blueprints. I have blueprints. These are dated June 13th of 1997. Over 16 years, the same parcel has been coming in front of the planning board. Different people on the board, you don't know what was said before, but the same developer, and each time asking for something different, just a little bit different. I've seen drawings on this land ranging from four McMansions with driveways on Deerhaven Lane, which wasn't allowed, to the high-density townhomes that were spoke about, and those were not allowed. I was in that meeting. They were not allowed. So why is this continually being brought up? So I went through and I dug out my plans today, and I just want to show you a little history and ask if what's in front of you today is really compliant. So this blueprint dated June 97, it shows here the density and the area of land that's brought in front of you. Note that in their figuring of how dense this should be, they are not taking into account the green space, and there's a reason for that. This other plan, this one is dated, oh, 2002. Two, it has the same basic outline, and once again, it is not taking that right-of-way into account. And I have a file, record plot data 2004. The 200-foot back is not included in the area. This is important, and let me explain why. The 200-foot setback was not included in these plans. it was used elsewhere. When the EAMP was adopted and guidelines were set in place, see page 38, the second paragraph on page 39, the overall plan for the entire new market was sketched. This setback land was used in determining density in different areas of the EAR2. TDRs, transferable development rights, were used. This land was already used to determine density. From page 39, if the maximum permitted density allocated to a parcel of land cannot be achieved because of the design requirements of special design areas, then that density would be transferable to lands located within the same expansion area, which are designated for more intense. So basically, to be fair to the developer and the owner, the EAMP told them you cannot build on this land, But to be fair and not put a hardship on them, they said you can take that land and transfer the right to build elsewhere in the EAR too. So that's what they did. They did that 16 years ago. You can look at page 71. They clearly talk about TDRs, and the EAMP outlines the different densities that are allowed. Okay, so let's go back to around 2004. The building continues to this plan, except for 20 houses along Stolen Horse Trace and to Ampolo Club. So there are 22 lots that were not built upon. So then the economy dies, and there were reasons that those were not built. The economy dies, stops building, nothing happens, and it just sits there. Now we jump to today. Building's booming. We have new members on the Planning Commission. And for some reason, this new market property is brought up again, but just a little bit different. So it's different today because they are now including that 200-foot setback to determine the density to build on this parcel. That right to build was transferred years ago. It cannot be used again to determine density per acre. The TDRs for that land were used when the entire new market was established. They're trying to reuse the acreage to make the development more dense. They used to have 22 lots. Now they're turning that 22 into 24. Remember, one of those is 15 feet into the 200-foot setback. And now they're adding 12 lots from Unit 7. Why are we bringing 12 lots from a different unit in here? I think we're trying to fudge things for more density, and that's wrong. Remember, this fudging is right along the designated rural scenic road. So just to recap, don't proceed today because we didn't have public access to the drawings. Require the developer to put a fence in that complies to the EAMP to protect the designated rural scenic character of the road. And deny these plans for two reasons. Lot 25, part of it is in the 200-foot setback, and the TDRs for this land were used years ago and can't be used again. I beg you to take this seriously. Please take your time and research what has been in place regarding the new market. This plan does not follow the guidelines outlined in the EAMP. Do not make an error and approve this development plan today. Once our bluegrass is gone, we never get it back. And one last thing from the EAMP. You saw me a couple months ago. On page 60, the first improvement required listed the four-lane boulevard between Todd's Road and the northern boundary of expansion area 2B required. They required that 16 years ago. All this development is continuing. The development has been allowed for 16 years. Please don't allow any more until the boulevard gets built. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Booth. Any questions for Ms. Booth at this point? Let me say this. First, I want to see if there's anyone else that wants to speak. We'll try and proceed with answers. I'm sure Mr. Murphy has rebuttal as well as staff, and we'll see if we can get some answers to this. Mr. Murphy, first, anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? If not, Mr. Murphy? Well, I was looking for a picture of this area on my phone. I thought this was going to be a sounded item, so we didn't bring some of the photographs we have. I want to emphasize, need to emphasize the history of this, what has gone on here. We have currently an approved certified development plan, which I'd like to put up on Elmo here, which was approved by you last year, I think, or a couple years before, certified this year. And I'm puzzled by the discussion of increasing the density here because this is the approved certified development plan, which you're seeing for this area, which has 62 buildable lots on here. i don't have a laser pointer does anybody have a laser pointer i can borrow it's on the podium okay there it is okay right here and there we go this plan you probably remember some of the discussion we had upon it because this has been amended a couple times and the expansion area master plan understands that plans evolve over time as well this plan here is stolen horse trace right here which is this road right here on this plan here is deer haven lane up here observing the 200 foot setback line which is right there but the difference you can see on this one is we have two rows of houses between Stolen Horse Trace and Deerhaven Lane. We're constructing an alleyway back here with one set of houses on Stolen Horse and one on the alleyway right here. Plus we have a number of what we're referred to, I guess, as the high-density townhouses over here. That's what's approved, and that's what we're allowed to build now. that's a certified development plan 62 lots on the same property we're showing you here 62 what we came in for here and we did to be honest about in an earlier version we had some townhouses here as well we had more townhouses on this certified on the previous certified development plan we had objections from miss booth i think and her husband and from some of our neighbors in our subdivision about building townhouses here when we had had single family detached in the rest of the neighborhood so this was brought in with an amendment but this is an amendment here we're going from 62 units to 36 62 to 36 so that's i think 26 units fewer than what we're showing almost about 40 reduction reduction in dwelling units that we have on this property The other big change, and I think this may impact the discussion about the 200-foot setback, is we only have one row of houses between Stolen Horse Trace and Deer Haven Lane rather than two rows of houses. And our houses here will be up closer to Stolen Horse Trace so that the impact of that is our houses are going to be way more than 200 feet back from Deer Haven Lane. So we're not only going to be observing the 200-foot setback from Deerhaven Lane, but our houses will be much farther back because we're eliminating this whole second row of single-family detached houses between Deerhaven Lane and Stolen Horse Trace. So the issue I was prepared to address today about density was, are we too low density here? and that is because we're having two units an acre here and yes counting the setback area two units an acre that is an extremely low density development the concern we discussed this a little bit with the staff are we going too low because in the AR two in this expansion area two we're supposed to have three units per acre we're supposed to have more units and we discussed that And as we have throughout all this, the expansionary master plan allows us to average this over the area. And we do average, and we have taken that 200-foot setback in account in all our averages here. And overall in our subdivision, and part of it's called New Market, most of it down here on this side, on the other side, up on the other side of the rails to trails, and in that area it's Clark property, but it's all owned by the Clark family. and we average more than three units an acre. But I was prepared to discuss how we should be allowed to go to this density on this unit of two units an acre, whereas we're supposed to be hitting a target of three units an acre in this subdivision, and we do hit that target. We do it. But by no means are we increasing density here. We are decreasing density over what we are allowed to do today under the approved development plan. um we are observing the 200 foot setback and I want to want to make a point about that too this is a 200 foot setback from Deerhaven Lane what the ordinances require is that we can't have any buildings we can't have any opaque fences any structures at all in this 200 foot setback now ironically I was trying to get the picture around here if you've driven out Deerhaven Lane and you know that we have an extremely large amount of its old fence line overgrowth, but it's along Deerhaven Lane, you can't see the 200-foot setback area from Deerhaven Lane in most places. You've got a wall of leaves. I mean, it may be a little better now with the leaves off some of the trees, the deciduous trees, but generally this 200-foot setback is not observable. So nevertheless, we have always honored that in here. But we'd also, as I understand, we'd be allowed to extend these lot lines all the way back and chop this 200-foot setback line into 20 different yards. Now, we'd have to put on our plat, we'd have to put an easement. You can't do anything there. And that's why I think some people have done these setbacks. They given them over to individual owners. We don't think that works well because We don't think it looks good to have Some of the grass mowed to two inches and some to four inches, you know and all that sort of thing So what we're doing is we're putting it all in a homeowners association That will be able to maintain it you know uniformly and keep it open and keep it open open what we think is the intent of the scenic resources area which is it's not it's open space excuse me it's not a not a scenic resource area but the intent is to keep it looking nice and we think the homeowners Association is the way to do that by the way a few years ago we offered this to the city to be part of a greenway part of a trail connecting up here and that was not wanted because of I guess the expense and all that stuff and at that time I know still now we're having trouble getting green ways accepted into the system, so We accepted that decision and we moved on and what we've done here is we've put it in the homeowners association So that'll be maintained open. It's a scenic viewshed And we're maintaining it as a scenic viewshed. We are not ready. We cannot commit to put a fence along here because maybe our folks would like to see into that area too the fence she's proposing a solid fence would block views in our folks want to see that too we want to have the advantage of the scenic view shed from both sides along here and I think that's fair we're not required to fence this in we're not required to block it so you can't see it from one side you can all that would the amount to you could only supposedly only see it from this side which you couldn't because the vegetation and you couldn't from the other either but so want to address just a I don't want to take up too much your time there's a couple other issues I need to address and that is the lot number 25 which is right here we have our lot line goes over the 200 foot setback area a matter of a few feet could be 10 feet or so I can't tell that dimension we're allowed to do that you're allowed to have a lot line going into the 200 foot setback area as i thought we thought the layout of this presented that we cannot build in it we cannot have a house in it or anything like that can't put fence in or anything like that but you can have the lot line going over there it's about 10 feet over there the other one is lot lot number nine right there why do we have a house started on lot number nine we do we have a house under construction as we speak on lot nine fully permitted and fully legal what that is we have a builder who is wants to buy all of these sections here dan mcculloch m&m builders very good builder here and we have a model house going up there we filed a mod display home minor plat which we're allowed to do under the ordinance which allows a display house to be built by a builder for display and you can't sell it to anybody you can't let it be occupied as a house but the builder is allowed to build on a display lot minor subdivision plant until we have the final plant approved so yes there's a house going up there it is absolutely totally legal we made sure we made through every every procedure to do that this is unusual because usually lawyers don't get involved in doing display lot minor subdivision plats but the clark family wants to make sure it does everything correctly and they even called me and said can we do this i said certainly the ordinance certainly allows this to be done and it was done by ea partners and it got filed it is recorded plant we cannot sell it though we cannot sell it to anybody to live in until you all approve the final plat that's the rules we go under but i want to talk about the boulevard because the boulevard has come up before the polo club boulevard is is shown on our subdivision plat it's right here coming off of deer haven lane you know deer haven comes off of todd's road near the interstate and comes in here curves in uh meets it and polo club is supposed to come on down and curve around and meets todd's road i think down further down and that has been delayed now we've had this discussion a number of times and not in the last few years so much But the background on that is that we don't own the Clark family does not own the area on the other side of Deerhaven Lane on which that property is located. It took the city many years to try to acquire that. I think they actually now own that property. But we got tired of waiting, too. The people living in our subdivision said to the Clark family and their development manager, we want to get to Hamburg easier. We have too much circling around to get to Hamburg. At that time, Polo Club Boulevard was not constructed from Manowar down to this property. You had to go out to Deerhaven, out to Todd's Road to make it in. especially after the interdiction, we couldn't go out to Winchester Road that way. Our residents complained about it to us, and the neighbors on Deerhaven Lane said, hey, we don't want to like all this traffic on Deerhaven Lane. So the Clark family spent I don't know how many dollars. It's well over a million dollars, as in the seven figures, to complete Polo Club Boulevard, to connect it up so you could get to man of war boulevard and get to the hamburg area now they would have had to spend that money eventually but they spent it about four or five years ago and are still paying interest on that have not if you go down polo club boulevard all that area that's vacant that's the clark family's property in this area they didn't have to build it then but they did to get that connection made out to the hamburg area so we have good safe sufficient access out to the hamburg area right now going back to this connection of polo club the other way the clark family was uh as mr king is well aware if he's here i don't know if he's here or not there you are was uh trying to participate in that with the city for a number of years by even contributing some money to that the city wouldn't take it to to finish that connection the other way and that's one clark said well if the city's not going to take our money to help build it this way we're going to have to spend our money to build polo club the other way so that's what they've done we have good safe adequate access into town now through polo club being built so and I understand the boost position they have they were there before all this development occurred they were there I think before back when Deerhaven Lane was called Walnut Hill Childsburg Road back before the interdiction was occurred back before they had a lot of neighbors here but what we want you to also know is that we are responding to have responded to neighborhood concerns we've connected polo club we've reduced the number of townhouses here we've reduced the number of units we are lowering the density in this area we are putting our houses farther away from deer haven lane than they than they are approved right now and i don't see any reason not to go forward this because we are reducing the number of units here we are not increasing the number of units here and we have counted every acre we own in our density calculations we own the 200 foot setback we've used that for our density calculations uh we're going to have to the the problem my clients are going to have is building enough units to meet the density requirements out there we're not going to have a problem lowering the units we're going to have Our problem is putting more units in here so that we can meet the density requirements of the EIR2. But we don't want to do it here. We do not think the place to put these units is next to the 200-foot setback area. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We've got a couple of questions. Hold on a second. I think Mr. Penn. Mr. Murphy, can you address, there's a few places in Fayette County where we use TDRs. Is this one of the places where the... No. This is not had TDR transferred off of it. No. Thank you. Mr. Burr has your question as well? Okay. All right. That kind of answered mine as well. Staff, anything to add, rebut? Just a couple of points of clarification. Mr. Murphy already covered this issue, but you do have an approved plan. It was approved by this body. The one that you see on the screen was approved January 17th of 2013 and was certified in July of this year. So that is the plan that currently governs the development of the property. We checked. We do scan all the plans in and lake plans as we get them. It is listed as being available for view, but apparently we just tested it, and it said you needed permission to see the plan, so there may be some computer glitch. We can't really speak to that or what the problem may be with the website. However, I would just point out again, this plan is on the website, and this is the preliminary subdivision plan, and this plan does match it. So not viewing this plan doesn't actually change the information available to the public. And, again, we will check and see what the glitch is because we're always concerned that people can't access the plans. As I said, the list popped up and said it was there, but we couldn't call it up. So, again, I can't really speak to why that happened. But I just wanted to clarify that for the Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions, Mr. Martin? Yeah, just another quick one, Tom. I'm still in a quandary here on the possible transfer of that acreage. Not that I don't trust you, Dick. I don't know that we have that information available. But for this development, the development plan that's on the screen right now, are you confident that the number of units per acre is valid for that, excluding what may have been transferred if it was, or including all of it if it hasn't? Yes, sir. Staff is confident. Yes, sir. We check the numbers. And as Mr. Murphy stated, the problem is going to be meeting the preferred density out there that we would like to see in the expansion area. Ms. Plumlee? Yes, I think the answer is the backlogs. Could they only advance those? Yes, ma'am, they could, but only in conformance with the ordinance, and the type of fence is strictly governed by the ordinance, but the owners could. Yes, ma'am. So there would be no difference between an owner fencing those and a developer fencing those so they would be uniform? The ordinance requires a certain type of fence, yes, ma'am, and it should be uniform. Would that comply more with the 200-foot setback and the requirement for a fence along there? It would clearly define it. I would grant that. But it's not required, you see, that it be fenced. Some owners may choose a fence. Others may not. And, again, you're allowed to lot that property off. A setback just restricts what can happen in that space. I believe that would be the option of the developer if he thought that was beneficial to his development and to the property. Staff obviously wouldn't have a problem if they did that. Mr. Penn? Tom, I'm thinking through this. I've got two questions, but the most important one is this. If that's supposed to be a viewshed and it's grown up in honeysuckle and trees and whatever else and it's turned over to the homeowners association, what is their impetus to keep it where it's not just the woods? I mean, have we defeated the purpose of the viewshed if we let this grow up in Lady Forest? You know, the view shed, I believe, and it's going back to 1996 and that area when all that was developed, I was on staff for a very brief time at that time and left. But it's the setback itself that's designed to give the feel and the view shed. And yes, the Homeowners Association, as private property owners, could go in there and make decisions to cut things down and that sort of thing. Now, any street trees or trees in a tree protection area would have to have the urban foresters' approval. But they're allowed to maintain the property, yes, which would include— Or not maintain. Or, yes, or not maintain, exactly, which is a bigger problem. Well, that's the unintended consequences of the viewshed. Yes, sir. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to Mr. Brewer's earlier question. In the second paragraph of the memorandum that Mr. Martins provided to you on this plan, the staff did do the density calculation for this area. Looking at the development plan, it includes almost all of the lotting that you see on that plan with the addition of just a little bit more to the bottom of that drawing. But looking at four different units of the development, it is at 3.01 units per acre, and that does include our 200-foot setback area. That's why the number for just what you're looking at is closer to two units an acre rather than three. Just wanted to clarify that for you. Okay, thank you. Ms. Mundy. For my clarification, that 200-foot setback is treated just like an easement. In other words, you can't build on it. You can't do anything on it, but you can have activity on it. You can, if you want to put a swing set and a slide on it, you have the permission to do that or not. It is very heavily restricted under the expansion area zoning ordinance. Structures are not allowed. Specific types of fences are allowed. We frequently deal with issues where we get questions about what can or cannot go in that area. and our response tends to be very strict interpretation of what is allowable in the area. But it's treated pretty much like an easement. Well, I hesitate to say that because I see easements as having a specific purpose to provide, but it is a setback, a highly restrictive setback. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Martin, most of my questions have been answered by or asked and answered by others. I want to go back to the beginning. Just as clarification, I think Mr. Salee did make note of the fact that posting was done on this. Posting? It wasn't posting, sign? Sign an affidavit, yes, sir. Yeah. That's requiring a development plan. Yeah, and I think you did apologize for the glitch in the computer system, and I would too. I know I've tried to go there in the past. I've gotten it open. Sometimes it can be difficult to enhance or enlarge or whatever, but I would apologize for that as well. But have you, you know, typically you do, have you received any phone calls in regards to that or just in regards to the plan itself, questioning it, you know, opposition of, or anything like that? Not to my knowledge, no, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? Well, we've gone through that. We went to the rebuttals. Any other questions from the Commission on this? If not, thank you. I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion among the Commission members, and or motion whenever everyone is ready. Yes, sir. Are you ready for a motion now? Yes, sir, I am. Okay. I'll move approval of 2013-131F, New Market Property, for the staff's items listed there. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. That's plan 2013-131F, Mike? Yes. Yes. with the 11 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. And then also we have the other one. Go ahead. Move approval of DP 2013-97 with the nine conditions. Okay, and adding the tenth one, documentation of division of water approval capacity insurance program prior to planned certification. Okay, thank you. Motion's been made. And seconded for now how many conditions? Ten conditions adding the last one. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion also passes. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Booth, for coming. We appreciate your concerns and hope that you got answers through it. We're going to take a five-minute recess before we proceed. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Before we resume. This is the season of giving. How good do you mean? Where is our gift? I'm not talking to him. Hi. It's my part. Yeah. Gift to give it. Mr. Emmons, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I would like to present to you today an item that's on page four of your agenda. It's Plan 2013-116F Thoroughbred Properties, LLC. This is a property that's located at 904 North Broadway. That's about 500 or 600 feet north of the Broadway and Loudoun Avenue intersection. The property is currently zoned B1 and B4. This plan was originally late filed at the end of September. It was approved by the Planning Commission on October 10th as a late file. I believe it was a sounded item at that time. The purpose of the final record plan was to split the one property into two properties. It does not split the property directly along the zone line, but it does split it so that the physical features on the property. This property in particular has two buildings on the subject property that had one business that was operating in both buildings. The applicants wish to subdivide the property so that they can sell off the front lot, the B1 property along Broadway. Anyway, they contacted me and asked for a continued discussion and asked me to put it on the agenda to facilitate that, because as we were reviewing this late plan, it did go to the technical committee on October 30th after the planning commission, just as it should have. And the plan and the plat is ready to be certified and ready to be recorded at the county clerk with the exception of two conditions. And I'm coming back to you as the IR facilitator asking the planning commission to give some dispensation on those two conditions. The first one item would be item number five, the urban forester's approval of the tree protection areas and required street tree information. The, as this plan was late filed, that was a standard condition that goes on a lot of plans. The technical committee comments from our urban forester, which came after the planning commission's approval, noted that his sign-off is not necessary and not needed for the subject property. So on the normal schedule of things, if it had gone to the technical committee, it would not have made it to the subdivision committee. Therefore, it would not have made it to you as this. That condition, technically, the urban forester is not signed off because he doesn't need to. The staff would ask that condition number five be deleted. The condition number eight, I believe that there might be some discussion about, but documentation of the Division of Water Quality's approval of the Capacity Assurance Program requirements prior to plan certification. Likewise, this was a pretty standard condition that was put on this final record plan. As this plan was originally filed, we knew that subdividing the property was for the purpose of selling off to a new user on the subject property, and a change of use would actually kick in the need for documentation on the Division of Water Quality. However, in this particular case, because both of the proposed lots have to have each of them have their own separate buildings on there, there is no physical changes being proposed to this property whenever this lot line goes through. In fact, both properties actually had their own independent tap bonds to the Sanitary Sewer Department, And since this plan has been approved, I forgot to introduce. This is the plan that was originally submitted, and this is the plan as it is today. There is now a new 20-foot sanitary sewer and utility easement that will service the rear lot, and it goes along the existing sanitary sewer lines. Those have been inspected and cleaned out. and are acceptable. And lot one doesn't have its own easement, but it has its own separate tap-on. There's no easement because it taps on directly to the utilities in the right-of-way. Because there will be a change in user, but what we now know is that there will not be a change in use. The front portion of the property was originally being used for retail sales, and a new retail sales are going in. They're not proposing to do any building additions. They're basically going to just be able to remodel and move into the building as it is. Therefore, it's unnecessary in this particular instance, in this infill project, to require the Division of Water Quality documentation of capacity assurance because everything is existing and that there are no physical change to the subject property. If at some point in the future they were going to change the use or come in for a building permit or something like that, that would get caught at the building permit counter. The staff is recommending that in addition to deleting condition number 5, that we also delete condition number 8. And then to round out things, the staff would just like to point out, the last condition on the item was number 19, review by the technical committee prior to plan certification. And that did happen, which is the reason why some of the issue on number five came up. The staff is recommending approval of this plan. This final record plan, I've looked through it. It has met every other condition. It's got every other sign-off. This particular plant is ready to be signed and certified, recorded, and then the transfer of the property can go through. I'm trying to think if there's anything else. I believe that's it for my prepared comments. Greg Isaacs with Palmer Engineering is here representing the applicant, And I know that the property owner and the representative of the buyer of the new lot are here also. And I'm sure that they would be able to answer any questions concerning this property if I'm not able to. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Jimmy? Jimmy, help me with this. and I'm probably going to go back to the statement I made earlier, similar to discussion as far as water quality sound off on EA-2 property. But use of record statements, evidence of use of record going to water quality, do you know anything about that? That term, I think I'm going to, is that the use of record specific term I'm going to? look for a little bit of help on this one. Use of records, the historical use of the property in terms of sewage generation, that's kind of the benchmark that's key to the Capacity Assurance Program to ensure that there are no additional increases in flow or additional taps in problem banks that increase the flow if they are deficient. I spoke to Mr. Martin, Charlie Martin, Water Quality. yesterday in regards to this as well as the 8EA2 property that we were discussing earlier. And he said, yes, in this situation you can consider it as being grandfathered. However, they should provide a use of record statement. and he had no problem okaying, approving it with a use of record statement. Does that make sense? It does to me, although I don't believe that that's not the information that had got us up to this point to where we are here today. Okay. Well, let's hear from the applicant at this point. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Greg Isaacs with Palmer Engineering. Thank you all for having me today. I've spoken to the tap-on desk several times about this specific property and this subdivision, and I've never been asked for that documentation. Basically, to this day, I've been asking for some sort of documentation saying that this was not required, and the response is basically that either I need sewer credits or I don't. And if I don't, then there's nothing for them to document. In other words, if I'm constructing a new building or changing the use of the building, then I need to make the application. Okay. And I guess my comments would be the fact that I think we're treading on a lot of new ground here and some uncertainty and so forth. But, you know, right now I'm relying on Mr. Martin saying that he has no problem okaying these things. Just as I said earlier with the EA2 development and property, yes, it is grandfathered in. However, to, you know, provide ourselves with confidence and cover down the road a statement from their desk, which he said would not be a problem, would be appropriate is what I'm being told. Okay. And if, you know. We're just looking for the, you know. You just want to get it done. This is the only, you know, this is the only thing. So, you know, if you've spoken to Charlie, then I'm sure we can get this addressed. So, others, anything else? Any other parts that you need discussion on? No. Ms. Plumlee? I would just like to follow up a little bit on my statements. I think we need a little more transparency and protection for down-the-road situations. So we need to document is there 500 gallons available to bail this place and making sure that should there be future development that it could be addressed in that hand. Yeah, well, we understand it's a new policy for all groups involved, and I think it's an issue of working it out between the different departments that everything gets clarified. Unfortunately, we just got sort of stuck in the middle of all that. Okay. Other questions, statements, or anything? Jim, anything else you'd like to add? No. And as far as 5 and 19, I presume everyone's good with deleting those. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Seeing none, if there's no other questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any other discussion among the commission members and or a motion. Anyone? Anyone? Mr. Berkley? Mr. Penn? Mr. Chair, I want to make a recommendation of approval with Plan 2013-116F, deleting item 5 and item 8 per the request of staff, and also 19. Okay. Motion's been made for approval with the three deletions. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2013-116F, deleting 5, 8, and 19. Any discussion on the motion? Yeah, Mike. Yes, sir. The only comment I'd like to make on that is I'm like Ms. Plumlee. I think at some point we're going to have to say if it's not documentation, it's discussion of why not documentation. I don't think we ought to just delete these things from these plans just at discretion of whoever to death. Now, maybe I'm wrong on that, but I think on these infield plans, somebody ought to say at least we've had this discussion, and we need to know that. So on an infill plan that doesn't have a use change, I'd like to see discussed the water quality thing. On the ones that do have a change, I think it has to be documented. But I don't want to fight the motion, but that's just my discussion. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Good luck. Thank you all for your time. I believe our next item is on page 6. It's item E, DP 2013-98. Am I correct, Mr. Martin Turpinall? Yes, sir. That's what you're bringing up? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next plan on your agenda is DP 2013-98. It is Turflin Mall amended. It is located on page 6 of your agenda. This is an amended development plan for Turflamall property, as I know everyone's well acquainted with, located on Herdsburg Road. We have prepared for you a large overview of the aerial that shows the entire development. This amended plan is located right here on the property. This is Walgreens. This is Lone Star, I believe, Steakhouse. Down here you would have Chick-fil-A, O'Charlie's, and I guess this is a Verizon store or some sort of store. And, again, this is Home Depot. Here's the area of the amendment. The Planning Commission recently approved an outlot, a plat, for this property. And subject to that approval was a requirement that a development plan be submitted and approved. The plan that you see before you proposes a 3,200-plus square foot restaurant. They are proposing parking that you can see in this location on the property. They have 68 spaces proposed. Here's the access point. There's a light as you come into the mall property at this location. Staff did review this, recommended it to basic development plan requirements. that you see on your agenda. There are several cleanup conditions, very basic sort of cleanup conditions, in terms of adding building height, correcting some wording in the certifications, and then addition of contour lines and documenting compliance with the landscaping requirements in the lot in the site statistics. There are two important discussion items on your agenda today that you can see, and that is this access location at this point right here. And again, stepping back to the picture of the property, overall, again, we're at this location where you come into the mall and here's Walgreens again. Here is the location point. And you can see the access drive through here at this location. This access point here that serves the steakhouse is no longer there. it's been closed. We have this one. This is an access point being proposed to allow entry and exits at this location. You can see they're tied into the rest of the property in numerous locations in the rest of the parking. You can see, again, that they are proposing two-way movement here, two-way movement here. We have parking in this location, parking in this location. this was a matter of great discussion at technical committee and your subdivision committee we do have an exhibit that has been passed out to you and I'll place it quickly upon the overhead and if you can read the red box on your exhibit it's outlined And the preferred traffic improvement says closes access. And that's what staff is recommending today. Closes access. It's too close to the public right of way in the light. It just has potential for too much conflict at this location. You may recall across the street, CVS and others have come in. We have an access road. We had a lot of discussion about parking and about potential conflict. and the concerns that the conflict would impact the traveling public and the public right away. And so staff has talked with your traffic engineers at length. This is the recommendation that this be closed. Now, there is a discussion item that was discussed somewhat at Technical and gained traction at your subdivision committee, and that was the provision of a pedestrian facility or sidewalk along the frontage along Harrodsburg Road. Now, the history of our community is on these state highways and these arterials, back in the day, they didn't approve that sort of thing, and they had reasons why they didn't. Now, we are in a different time, and we're getting a lot more sidewalks approved. We're getting these facilities. We just recently had one approved on Nicholasville Road, for instance, where there wasn't one where we had some redevelopment of a piece of property. Again, I'm a state arterial because it's staffs. We believe it's appropriate effort to try to get them where we can. You may recall that Walgreens came before you with a plat not long ago in a waiver request because they want to locate here in this location. We requested and are getting sidewalk improvements along this frontage as well right here. The hope is that someday, as properties redevelop, we will have a completed pedestrian system on this side of the road. We do have one here. You can see there are sidewalks across Harrisburg Road. There is a bus stop, I believe, somewhere in this location. And then the next one is on further up here. And I would be remiss if I didn't point out, as you look at the overall picture, that this is my mother's house right here. In case she's watching, I'm her baby, by the way. But she is there. So, again, this location here, the development plan, I'm not going to tell you how old she is, but if I'm her baby, you can probably. Let's not go there. But again, your staff and your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan subject to the discussion or the conditions that you see before you. And as I stated before, staff is recommending that that access point highlighted with the orange circle on the plan be closed. And the discussion of the sidewalk, staff would like to see a sidewalk. obviously that would have to be worked out with traffic engineering as well as the Kentucky Department of Transportation to ensure that it was located appropriately in that location if you have any questions for me I'll be happy to answer questions for Mr. Martin let me while we're here on your you're there let me just ask as far as 15 and 16 we've got discuss items on as read right now, your preference would be on 15 just to say close access point? That is your staff's recommendation, yes. And then 16 would be resolve? Resolve, yes, sir. All right. Applicant, Mr. Kaling? Applicant? Who's speaking? Both of you? Yes, we both will. Okay. Rory Kaling with EA Partners. With me is John Talbot, representative for the property owner. I guess I'm on behalf of the city barbecue wants to is the client for this location the easy answer for number 16 They'd be agreeable to the sidewalk They'd ask that it could be Noted that it would be built in conjunction with the rest of the frontage when the next pieces would come in or place a bond Something so that they weren't building a piece of sidewalk that didn't end or ended nowhere at this moment So if there's some sort of notes where that can be a part of the project to be built later. As Tom was telling you, we're looking at this area here. so there is no sidewalk present for Harrisburg Road all the way back until you get inside of Lane Allen and you're close to the residential areas the corner lot is approved that they're gonna have one but it would not link up to our side either right now we'd be having a sidewalk that thing when were to come through the parking lot and get on it would dead end them into a grass right away strip in front of these other properties so they were agreeable to do a sidewalk they just wanted to be able to come in and do it say at the time it was done entrance to entrance that would lead me to number 15 and this this entrance is very important to not only this project but the other properties along here right off of harrisburg road are these two entrance points into the mall itself and this is a the front service road this drive lane connects all these three properties together gets you from access point to access point the existing access point is or i'm sorry the existing access way through here it's built it's It's been in operation as long as I've been going to the mall there, and there's a deeded easement through there for this cross-access. So you're asking to terminate something that's already of record. And I'll let Mr. Talbot talk to that. Thanks, Mr. President. We're going to take the microphone away from you. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. My name is John Talbot, Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, and members of the commission. I'm here on behalf of Turf Development. As you all may know, Turf Development acquired Turf the Mall about this time last year. And in discussions, you know, about what to do with the balance of the mall, it is a big project. The opportunity to buy it came upon it pretty suddenly. and then this opportunity to do the city barbecue is sort of the first thing to really come to fruition. There are discussions about the rest of the mall, and I think that to kind of echo what Mr. Cayley just said about keeping the access point open, not only is it critical to the three businesses that are across there, but it's also as the back part of the mall redevelops, I think sending all the traffic back behind these businesses and then having it funneled around to the other businesses is really not the best plan. I think that at a minimum there should be allowed a right turn down the service road. So if someone's coming in, entering the property from Harrodsburg Road, that they would come along here and be able to make this right turn right back in there. And I think that the concern is with people coming out and trying to go left at the light. that's where the traffic gets backed up and stacked. We talk about striping this, marking it right turn only, right exit only, and that sort of thing. I think that's a better way than closing off the access. And, again, as Mr. Cayley pointed out, all of the other three businesses, the lotting pattern was created and the service road were all created when the Walgreens was done, The Verizon store was done, the old Charlie's, all down through there. And so now to close that entrance would have a profound effect on them. And, again, as you all just noted, the Walgreens is getting ready to relocate. It would probably make that space a whole lot more difficult to release to close that access. It would make it much more inaccessible. So that's why I think that it should be kept open. and some alternatives like striping be used and marking it to be right out only, right turn only when you leave. So you have to go up around the median and come back to the light. Thank you. Thank you. One more quick thing. What the subdivision committee saw, this is a slight revision. Where you're coming off Harrisburg Road, we added the striping and the two arrows, making it a dedicated right turn into the service road, and then the left lane being dedicated straight through. At subdivision committee, I thought that was what was being discussed at the table, is controlling that right movement in. The square that says closing the access, that was new to us today. so we were trying to address the subdivision comments by dedicating the lanes as they came in off of harrisburg road okay um mr pen you've got a question yeah rory um by looking at the whole turfland mall area if we were just if we were just developing that one piece of property and the rest of this wasn't going to develop then i could see keeping that access there But if you look at the whole aerial view right there, when the rest of Turf Fund Mall develops, that's a stoplight intersection right there. And it would have to be, at minimum, a right turn. And I don't think the traffic flow is meant to come out that close to that light. It works now because nobody's in there. I mean, it's just empty space. If all that space was developed, which we hope it will be, whether it be apartments or retail or whatever it is, and that light's not going to change. So why do we want to set a situation up that we have to turn around and close at some point because of traffic problems? So I want us to look at the whole thing, not just that one piece of property. Yes, Walgreens will disturb, but that's an awful limited access road if you had all that action going on in there. A right turn might be okay, but a left turn out of there would never work because it would be stacked. So I don't know whether we're doing a one-piece deal here or whether we're trying to look at how we're going to redevelop turf and mall all together. uh dr drake question thank you mr chairman my question deals with the same issue except it's probably directed at the staff i can think of one more uh development or circumstance in lexington it's virtually identical to this on richmond road have we had problems or complaints with the same type of entrance there? The entrance to what's the restaurant? Fazoli's and the parking of that whole strip shopping center there that runs the length down to yeah. It's in Margaret. Yeah. Generally, planning doesn't always receive complaints about the built environment, but traffic certainly does because they're charged with signage and other issues associated with right-of-way and access. So if there had been problems, most likely it would have been directed to that division. So I can't really speak to anything we may have received. I can't recall anything offhand. With that, we can ask traffic to come forward. Let me see what other questions there may be, but Ms. Cocker, you can come on down. It sounds like the price is right. Patrick, do you have a question? Well, I probably should wait until traffic, but I'm trying to juggle this, what Frank had mentioned about the long-term versus what I think is going to be a fiasco the way it is right now. So if just looking at the immediate situation, signage and stripes I don't think are going to cut it. Is there space, and are you willing to put in other barriers that would force a right-only out of that right-turn-only off of Harrodsburg and then a right-turn-only out of the restaurant? I think what you're talking about is this being Harrodsburg Road and the entrance. This median connecting to this median, so there would be no way to make that left. That would leave this open, and then this would be a right-turn-only. there would be nowhere to go um yeah we can do that as as a consolation to having to close the whole thing absolutely miss cocker like to add something um i don't really have anything to add traffic would be agreeable to closing that median which prevents the left out and that's what we we were concerned about. And to address Mr. Drake's concern on Richmond Road, I'm not aware of any. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're not out there. I just don't have any particular situation I've heard of. Yeah. To me, it seems like the scenario over on Richmond Road is much more open for some reason as opposed to this. Mr. Wilson, question? Not a question necessarily. I have to be honest with you. I don't like this plan at all with that access. I don't like it at all. I'm sitting here thinking about those cars moving into that thing. I can see jam-ups coming. In addition to that, the cars that are parked to the street, they're going to be backing out into that traffic flow, which is going to be a part of that stream. I, I, is it not possible to simply move that interest somewhere else and, and do something else with it? Thank you. because it's a legal entrance for the Walgreens and for the other things along there. But hopefully I think that the right in and the right out only and extending the median would eliminate that concern. I appreciate the position you're in. I understand that legal thing. I'm just sitting here thinking about public safety. And no offense, I think you all have done a great job. I don't like it. Exactly. And with all due respect, Turf Development owns Turflin Mall, but not the Walgreens, not the Old Charlies, not the Outlots. The only Outlot that Turf Development owns will be the one that's before you today. The Walgreens was sold off quite a while ago. Let me ask Ms. Cocker one more thing. As far as your original thought on closing that access, and they're talking about a deeded access easement, And if you close that one, were you planning on closing the one on the right-hand side as well? Show me where. I'm not sure I followed your location on that. On the right-hand side of the property where the access easement goes across the front? No. No. No, not closing the access between the properties. Correct. Only closing the access to the entrance. Okay. All right. Mr. Brewer, you got a question? Yeah. Did you get your answer? Yeah. Yes. She said no. I think you confused me more than – anyway, okay. The other question I had just realized after what Bill said, right turn off of Harrodsburg into the restaurant could stack pretty easily. Do we have – is there room there for a right turn lane on Harrodsburg so that if that stacks, it doesn't impede traffic flow out Harrodsburg Road? Off of Harrisburg Road, there is a right turn at that location. Currently. Any other questions? Yeah. Other questions? Anything else? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Anything else to add, folks? Tom? No? Okay. Other questions from the Planning Commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing. We've got two discussion items that we need to take care of. And I guess I'd say what's your pleasure at this point? What I would request is whether somebody on staff could give us the language to include to address that right turn only, closing the median. We'll try and put something up on the overhead for you. any other questions mr pan mike while they're doing that we might talk about the pedestrian yes sir thing along harrisburg road yes sir the applicant requested that be done when the others are done i don't know how you do that but i do think it and for the long-range plan of turfland there needs to be a sidewalk down through there because the apartment houses for no other reason And, you know, I'll chime in on that if I'm not totally mistaken. It wasn't a month or two months ago up on the corner we're in the same mode where we required sidewalks. And, yeah, right now some of it may be a sidewalk to nowhere. I've got a problem with delaying the building of it. One, will it ever get built? to, I think, doing it now is a much cleaner method and will provide the impetus to make it happen on the other pieces as we go forward. Other thoughts? Yeah, building it on the site. Yeah, that's all we can ask for now. So, Mr. Sally. Mr. Chairman, a couple of ideas about our discussion items. 15 could be revised, as you've discussed, to read revise access point proposed near signalized intersection to close existing median opening. And then on 16, it sounds like either that's a resolve condition or maybe instead of the word resolve, replacing discuss, provide a pedestrian facility. The commission may wish to discuss that option a little more. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And as far as number 15, there was some discussion as far as additional striping and so forth. Would we need that? I think that would be part of the traffic engineering sign-off. Okay. All right. Okay. So back to a motion if anyone's ready, if you've got the language that you want. Yeah, I was just going to ask for Rory. Does that sound okay to you guys? Okay. I'm ready to make a motion. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2013-98 with the revision of item 15 per bill's suggestion and item 16 per bill's suggestion. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded with the revised 16 conditions now for DP 2013-98. Mr. Chairman, if we could ask just for clarification whether 16 was resolve or provide. I did not write provide up there, but I mentioned either of those. I'm reading 15 as revised access points. Is that what you wrote? I'm sorry, 16. 16, I thought you had resolve. Resolve or, yes. I've made the motion based on resolve. That needs to be, well, no, is that address the concerns? It needs to be provide or revised. Okay. Bill, you want it to provide? Provide provides the surety that it will be constructed as the restaurant is constructed. Resolve still leaves it. Okay. So trying to make sure that this works for everybody. Again, I'm in the middle of a motion, so I guess I need to rescind that motion because I want to make sure that this works for everybody involved. Roy, are you guys okay with that? One's nodding yes and one's nodding, so I'm going to go with yes unless you say something quickly. Okay. Mr. Brewer. I'll revise my motion for approval of DP 2013-98, changing 15 and 16 according to what is written on the screen. Revise on 15 and instead of resolve, change that to provide. Okay. So we've got – do we have a second to this motion? Okay, motion's been made and seconded. with the now revised 16 conditions. Are there any discussion to the motion or on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Next, we have at the bottom of the page, DP 2013-100 Lexington Mall property. We do have revisions that should be before you on a brown sheet. Good afternoon, Ms. Tuttle. things for your patients, as well as the others that are patiently waiting. Thank you. Make it short and sweet. Let's call. Good afternoon. I guess we're going to stay with the mall theme. We're going over to Richmond Road to the Lexington Mall where the Southland Christian Church is now constructed. Like you said, the brown sheet has revised conditions. This is development plan DP 2013-100 Lexington Mall, Southland Christian Church. This is an amended final development plan to revise the use of the building layout for lot 8 and add the easements on lot 7 and 8 that have been recorded. This is a B6P planned shopping center. Since the committee, the applicant submitted a revised plan that will reduce the approved surplus parking by three and remove a few of the cleanup conditions that we have here. With that, we have 12 conditions. The first nine are typically just sign-offs. We have denote height of building and feet on lot seven, to note the 25-foot setback. And our last condition is to resolve the status of note number 16 on the plan. I spoke briefly with Tom, and he has been discussing this with Hillard Newman. He's got some information about that. Are there any other questions? I'm sorry. This is Lot 7 and then Lot 8. Lot 8, looks like they're going to have restaurants. This one here is not labeled to what they're going to put in there, but I'd almost say that's a drive-thru. Thank you, Ms. Gall. Any other questions? Mr. Martin? I just wanted to briefly go over that last condition with you and explain it. It's a little unusual, and we just had a final discussion on it a few minutes ago, actually, to be sure we were all on the same page. And again, as you know, here's Richmond Road. Here are the two lots in question. And there's been a lot of modification to the floodplain in this area, as the Planning Commission is aware. And that is why we wanted to clarify that note 17, which is now 16. That note talks about this area over here. and it was done on a minor amendment in order to address a problem that the church had when they were constructing their property. They needed to store some dirt, and it was a temporary staging area, and it has a drop-dead date on it, which was December 1st of this year, so the note really no longer is applicable. The concern is that it was placed in a floodplain area, But because they filed a conditional letter of map revision that is changing the floodplain, we were able to go forward with that minor amendment and allow that dirt to be stored there because ultimately it's being used to modify the floodplain consistent with the conditional letter of map revision. But it's still a conditional letter. Basically, how we'd like to see that resolved is just that that note be resolved as appropriate to provide accurate floodplain information on the property. And we just wanted to bring that to your attention because it's a little bit of an unusual situation. And that timing element is what made that note problematical. But just again, I just wanted to explain that to you. Thank you. Questions for Tom? Mr. Martin, condition 10 says denote height of building on lot 7. What is that height? Generally, we request that in feet because quite often what happens is they tell us one story, two stories, that sort of thing. And we'd like to know exactly it's a requirement. It appears that with the new plan, they've addressed that at least here on this lot. But we do you know what it is, the building or the height? Yeah, the height. In this case, it says 21 feet on this one. I don't see a height designation. I assume it's one story. But again, that can vary. So we've been we've been a little more strict in making sure that's clarified on development plans. So, in other words, what we're approving today would require them to denote that on the development? Yes, sir, it will. Thank you. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Martin. I think my name is Sarah Tuttle with Strand Associates, representing the developer of Lot 8. The reason we don't have Lot 7 answered is that the only reason we included that initially was to add some easements that weren't on there. But this is kind of a cleanup that we'll find out. We do not represent the proposed developer for Lot 7. I have Matt Minner here. He represents Lot 8 as well. But for three parking spaces, this would have been on the consent agenda. and we have removed those in order to have some flexibility to have adequate space for the dumpster in case we need a second one. Thank you for the answer, Ms. Tuttle. Any questions for Ms. Tuttle? No? Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on this in regards to this plan? No? Any questions from the Planning Commission? Thank you. If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among Commission members and or a motion. Ms. Mundy? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of DP 2013-100 Lexington Mall property, Southland Christian Church, with the 12 conditions noted by staff. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP 2013-100. With the Revalues conditions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next would be Coldstream Park. It's DP 2013-107. And while they are getting ready, you do have a memorandum for the fall insureties, release of fall insureties that needs approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds dated 12-12-2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the final item before you today is item G on page 7, DP 2013-107, Coldstream Park Lot 1. This is the development plan that is associated with the zone change recently granted by the Planning Commission that was instituted, of course, by your Urban County Council to develop land out on Citation Boulevard on Coldstream property. This is towards the rear of the property. And again, here is Citation in this location. Here is a proposed access point. It is a 72,439-square-foot facility that's being proposed with associated parking circulation into this location here. You do have some single-family residential development that's developed in this location here. As part of your zone change, there was conditional zoning in a buffer area. is approved to protect these folks in this area. As well, again, you can see single-family homes in this area. There is a 100-foot setback at this point. You can see this line from this single-family development in this location. This is the flood plain out on Coldstream that's associated with Cane Run. This is, I believe, a veterinary supply facility that is going to be constructed here. This land is currently under lease by the urban county government for what was to be an emergency response center that was not constructed. So that's why you have this before you today. These are berms, by the way, these tight contour lines that you can see that are being proposed to help buffer the property additionally. These are existing tree stands that are in the area. This plan was a late plan, and there are a large number of conditions, 30, one being reviewed by the technical committee prior to plan certification. This is not a record, by the way. We've had a few plans that have actually exceeded 30 conditions. There are a number of standard conditions for a final development plan, as you can see, on your agenda. And then the rest of the conditions, roughly from 12 down to 29, are what we consider cleanup conditions. just a matter of getting the correct information on this plan. The plan was prepared by Denham Blythe, and as you all are probably aware, they're a local firm. They're a design-build firm, and it's not unusual when staff works with design-build firms that they don't always meet Article 21 as completely as other firms who are used to our process. design build firms tend to get used to just submitting construction plans and site plans when they're ready to pull permits and go. So a little bit outside their normal experience, which is the reason that you see the number of conditions that you do. But as I told the subdivision committee, staff is confident that we will work with them and get the appropriate conditions on this plan. And that's just a very brief explanation of why you see the number of conditions that you do. The plan is straightforward with the building, parking, access off citation. But if there are any questions that you have for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Yes, Mr. Penn. Tom, I see 2-24-14 is our deadline on this. My question is, I guess I should ask the applicant, but why is this a late file? Why do we want to hear this before the technical can hear it next week? They probably are the best ones to answer that. I'll defer to that. That's all right. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. The applicant? Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Katie Beard with Denham Blythe representing Denham Blythe, who is actually going to be the developer of this property. Tom has pretty much covered what we are trying to do here. And in regards to the number of conditions, I have revised all of the cleanup options. That takes us down to 15 conditions left to resolve, and we are in agreement with all of those. They're kind of the standards. As far as why it's a late file, the tenant for this property chose us the day before the late file deadline and asked us to meet that. They are anxious to begin, as most developers are, and they wanted to start in January. So that's why it was late filed, and we're trying to push it through like that. But like I said, we're in agreement with all of the conditions, and I will just be happy to answer any other questions you may have. Any questions for Ms. Beard at this point? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? I guess the reason I feel so strong about this is I think this is one of several plans, but the technical committee really needs to weigh in on this. It doesn't matter who owns the property. It matters how it's developed, how the water is handled on it, what the neighborhood people think about it. There's a lot of issues here that are not just standard. And so I'd like for somebody to address that because I don't see the urgency unless he's going to start in the next two weeks. We're going to have hearings in January. And I just think the technical committee needs to see this. Now, I'm sure staff will disagree with me on that, but that's where I am. The target date was January 2nd, and now I think it may be pushed back to January 14th, but I'm not sure what the schedule is for the next meeting. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Ms. Beard? Mr. King, you came down, I'm sure, for a reason. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commission members. I wanted to explain to you a little bit. This is a very unique situation. this is one of those very fast-moving economic development initiative situations where a prospective firm bringing additional jobs and additional development to Fayette County in competition with other communities, working very fast to try to turn around decisions at their corporate level. So with that in mind, they indicated preference for this site. We initiated the zone change, which you may remember, and the Urban County Council initiated that zone change. That zone change went through very quickly, and the council, in response to the need for speed to resolve some of these basic threshold questions, actually gave the request to readings on Tuesday night. So the property has now been rezoned. That said, everyone is concerned. As you recall, there were neighbors who came to the zone change hearing who had primarily development plan questions, and we didn't have a development plan at that time because of the situations as described. So to be honest with you, I don't think we're too concerned from a technical standpoint, but the timing is critical. So I think today it's very important to hear the neighbors, hear the plan, see if there are any issues that need to be resolved, adjustments to the plan, so that both this firm and as they move on and try to negotiate a contractual arrangement for a lease on this with the urban county government, those things can proceed without delay because there is a very critical timeline involved in the decision-making on this. So, sure, it would not be our preference. It would not have been our preference to not have a development plan at the time of zoning. It would not have been a preference to have to have a late filing and not have technical committee. But there are unique safeguards in this, and I will say, again, at some point the lease would have to be approved by the Urban County Council, so public vetting of a lot of details that you normally don't have in a development situation. But, again, what's important is that everyone involved know what the parameters are going to be. Is it doable before it moves to that next step? So I would request that the commission consider today, hear from the neighbor who has come and what the concerns may be, talk through those to see if we can get to that point so that it can be reported on to council. Thank you, Mr. King. So let's, yes, others that would like to speak, come forward. Thank you all very much. My name again is Chris Jones, and I live in Belmont Farm subdivision. Belmont Farm is actually the neighborhood that extends along this side of the tree row. As you can tell, one of my primary concerns about the development at this point is in the last meeting, When we were having the zone hearing, we were very concerned about noise pollution in the area during operating hours of this facility. At this point, it looks as though they may have added a small portion of tree row. I don't know that it's going to be any greater than what we have there currently. I would like to point out that the majority of this tree row is deciduous. So during your fall and winter season, there's going to be no protection, no buffer in that area. I'd also like to draw attention to the fact that even though this facility does show a main building area here, there is a proposed area for an extension in the future, which would basically touch that tree row. So again, that reduces the barrier even further into those neighborhoods. At this point, it looks as though the loading docks for the 18-wheelers are going to be at the bottom portion of this and the top portion of this. The top portion is certainly understandable. It gives you direct access out onto citation. What you're going to deal with in this bottom portion is the noise pollution that you provide to both Highland Community and Belmont Farms. It looks like there's no true additional barrier. There's a broken barrier that maybe they've added here in the bottom, but nothing that would provide substantial coverage to drown out the noise that may be created in this. Certainly another of my concern is the fact that we are moving so quickly on this process. I'd like to remind everyone that we met for the rezoning of this area, and you pushed this forward with no plan at all, other than you knew it was going to be a vet clinic. Now we have a plan, and they're asking you before other committees can review it, please pass it through. I think they're concerned at this point that there may be pushback. Certainly there's pushback in our neighborhood and from me. At this point, there are questions that I have as far as where air conditioning units, ventilation units are going to be installed at this location. Are those going to be further noise issues for us, especially if they're rooftop mounted, as they typically are on distribution facilities? How this is going to impact overall traffic on Citation Boulevard, will that mean that we'll need a stoplight installed at this intersection to help ease the flow of traffic in this area? according to i'm sorry i'm going to pop back over here for just a moment the front of this facility appears as though it has one small proposed parking area in the front my concern at this point is we've been told before that the facility itself will only operate until noon, and then at that point all shipping will cease. I'd like to see that that is the continued plan for this facility, but we've had no guarantee that that will be the plan for this facility. If that small parking area in the front, I'd like to know if that's designated for retail parking. Are they going to open up a small retail facility because that is allowable according to your P3 guidelines for the area. And then the last thing that I have is the overall lighting in the area. It was an issue that we had once before when we were planning on putting the disaster relief center in that area. I'd like to know, especially with the distribution facility being so close to the neighborhoods, how is the backside of that going to be lit, and is that going to impede into the neighborhood But, you know, with a building being that tall, any lighting that's attached to that is going to shine into those homes. And I think that's all the questions that I have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for coming. Mr. Wilson, do you have a question? Yes, I did. Oh, no, one second, Ms. Beard. I'd like to ask. Yes, sir. Is there a neighborhood association in this area? I am part of the Belmont Farm Neighborhood Association. Are you speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association? Association? Yes, sir, I am. Oh, okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, Ms. Beard? Do you have a question? Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Drake, I'm sorry, missed you. No, no, you go right ahead. Sorry. I just want to know, do we know what the employment and investment quantities are, statistics are in this facility? In other words, what's the economic impact? All I can really speak to is 50 employees are proposed at this facility. Fifteen? Fifty, five-zero. Oh, five-zero, okay. And that's really all I can say as far as that goes. Do we know the type of products? It is a veterinary distribution center, a wide range of veterinary products. Thank you. Ms. Beard, can you respond to some of the concerns? Yes. I've taken notes, and I'll try to address your concerns and try to put your mind at ease on some of these. As far as noise pollution, we have been told that the truck traffic will cease at noon. I'm not in a position to guarantee that, but daytime hours, it definitely will be limited to daytime hours. Another thing about this building, it will be LEED certified, And that will kind of help address some of the noise and friendly neighbor conditions, so to speak. The lighting will all be directed on site. The only lighting will be in the parking lot and at the truck docks. They'll all be directed down onto our site to meet the lead requirements. We're not allowed to disperse light off of our property. Another thing that may help with the noise, this building will be about nine feet lower than our residential neighborhood to the west. It will be about even with the one on the back of the property, but there is quite an offset as opposed to that other property line. The landscaping, the buffers will remain as they are. There's a 50-foot buffer there. And as far as the expansion that he mentioned, we will not expand any closer than 60 feet to that side property line. That's due to the building code restrictions. We have to keep a 60-foot path around this building of this size. Let me see. The truck dock noise in the back, again, will be limited to daytime hours. The HVAC units will be all rooftop units. I believe there's four or five units. We have incorporated a two-foot parapet on the roof to screen those from sight and hopefully reduce some of the noise that comes off from those. traffic. Like I said, we're proposing 50 employees, so I think that's a pretty limited number for this area. And there are turning lanes, both left turn lane coming, I guess, westbound, and then the right turn lane coming from the eastbound. So the traffic should be accounted for, and then there is no retail at this facility. It's strictly a distribution center. There is an office, a little there is an office here in the front. This little bump out is an office. And then this is a proposed office that may occur as well. But all of this in here is just shipping and receiving and their process and storage inside. So I don't know if that helps you some. Hopefully put your mind at ease about some of your concerns. It is a very light industrial-type use. Any questions for Ms. Beard at this point? Ms. Plumlee? I'm addressing the concern about trees being deciduous along the side, and I wonder if consideration could be given to like a 70% wintertime coverage, which would help screen the building the way the neighbors requested. That's something we could definitely look into, yeah. I know there's some shrubberies along the bottom that are, at least the last time I was out there, were still green. I don't know that they're evergreens, but that would be something we would be agreeable to consider, definitely. Other questions? Ms. Beard, can you expound a little bit more as to the proposed extension that has been discussed? Reasons for it? Reasons for the proposed expansion? Yeah. Okay. At this time, we're showing a proposed expansion both directions, And I don't know the timeline or proposed outlook on that, but that's just something that the tenant had requested that we go ahead and put that on here just in case their business increases enough that they would need that. Okay. Mr. King, or were you going to say something? We know a number of these are questions, and we're checking the ordinance, for instance, on the buffering that's required on the zone-to-zone between P2. And I was giving Mr. Sally some information here that then he can communicate both to the neighbors and to the Planning Commission as to what is required. Okay. Mr. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You may recall at your hearing three weeks ago, the staff recommended conditional zoning to maintain the largest trees along the boundary with the two subdivisions. There was not any requirement as part of the conditional zoning to augment the other planting requirements that are required between a P2 zone and a residential zone. And that's what we were checking the ordinance and what I want to report to you. In addition to those trees, which the ordinance requirement for a vacant piece of land is a tree every 40 feet. So we're pretty confident these tree stands will exceed that. But in addition, there is a requirement either for a double row, six-foot high hedge, or a six-foot high hedge, pardon me, six-foot high fence, wall, or earth mound if the double row hedge is not provided. So there still will be either another, it sounds like, another row of hedging material or fence or wall or another set of berms required to complete the zone-to-zone screening. And that is a standard P2 requirement in Article 18 of the ordinance. So there's not been any variance requested to that or anything. Mr. Salley, do you know as far as the birming right now that's been mentioned, how far does it go behind the building, between the building and the property line? It's difficult to tell. There's a little bit of the berm here, it appears. This looks to be excavated, as Ms. Beard described, here to where the building will sit lower than this elevation in the subdivision. but there is some berming proposed here and staff's understanding is that that may actually also be lowered once the cold stream design review process is completed we we expect the staff when this plane comes that will be a lower berm on the front side of that okay other questions thank you thank you mr. Sally. Anything else? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for discussion and or motion. Let me say first, I know Mr. Penn spoke of late plan and everybody's been talking as far as this being fast moving, unique situations and so forth, which believe me I can understand and appreciate. We saw this It's three weeks ago now, I guess, as a zoning item, and I'm sure a lot has been done during that time. Ms. Beard spoke as far as having a revision with 15 conditions. I believe it would have been very helpful to have had that here today, and I think it would ease a lot of concerns. It would ease my concern, I know that much. just having a much cleaner plan to go forward with and giving us confidence to make that happen. But my two cents worth. Other questions, statements? Yes, sir. Are you ready for a motion, Mr. Chairman? If everybody else is, yes, sir. Similar to what you just said, I've been involved in a number of locational decisions in a previous life, and I can appreciate the sensitivity and the intensely competitive nature of them and given the vetting that this has been through and the urgency of the decision, I'm going to move approval of DP2013-107. Thank you. With the 30 conditions, I don't think anything's changed at this point. I don't recall we heard any recommended changes. No. A motion has been made for approval of DP 2013-107 with the 30 conditions. Do we have a second? Second. A motion has been made and seconded. If there's no further discussion on motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Mr. Chairman. Yes. If you don't mind, I'd like to comment from Mr. Jones. You know, we have had this information. I want to assure him that this information will be added to the development plan. We will certainly be glad to have the continued discussion with him, I'm sure, because, again, at some point this will go to the Urban County Council for their, and so some of those detailed things like the shipping timing which i had been told as well that's typically not a development plan or zoning restriction but it might be part of a lease agreement and those kinds of things so i just wanted to say the discussion should not and does not stop here we will continue to talk and and work on on any concerns that the neighbors might have as they find out more about this and as the plan is solidified thank you mr king Thank you, everyone. Other commission items? Anything? Any staff items? I did was neglect a month ago to ask about any audience items, and I'm trying to make sure I cover all the bases. Anyone else have anything they want to bring up? Seeing none, our next meeting is next Thursday since we've got a holiday coming up. So with that, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Do we have a second? All those in favor, please say aye. Meetings adjourned. Thank you, folks.