# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - May 8, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 8, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3351 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3351?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-05-08 - **Last revised**: May 8, 2014 - **Length**: 23,256 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on May 8, 2014, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting addressed two main agenda categories: a Consent Agenda and Discussion Items, both handled as informational matters. During the session, commissioners took four votes on various planning matters before the commission. No members of the public provided comments during the meeting's public comment period. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 8, 2014: **Present:** • Carolyn Plumlee • Joe Smith • Will Berkley • Karen Mundy • Frank Penn • Mike Owens • Hillard Newman • Casey Kaucher • Bill Sallee • Tom Martin • Cheryl Gallt • Dave Jarman • Denice Bullock • Kelly Hunter • Captain Greg Lengal • Lieutenant Joshua Thiel • Tracy Jones **Absent:** None **Late:** None A total of 17 individuals attended the meeting, with full attendance recorded and no absences or late arrivals noted. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting resulted in four items being postponed, with no formal votes taken on any of the agenda items. **PLAN 2014-11F** - TUSCANY, UNIT 10 located at 1970 Winchester Road was postponed. No motion was made or seconded, and no vote count was recorded. **DP 2014-13** - GROWTH PROPERTIES (AMD) located at 100 Goodrich Avenue was postponed. No motion was made or seconded, and no vote count was recorded. **DP 2014-26** - KIRKLEVINGTON NORTH, TRACT B (AMD) located at 858 Malabu Drive was postponed. No motion was made or seconded, and no vote count was recorded. **DP 2014-34** - LYNN GROVE ADDITION, LOTS 79 & 80 (AMD) located at 105-107 Burley Avenue was postponed. No motion was made or seconded, and no vote count was recorded. All four development-related items on the agenda were postponed without formal voting procedures. The meeting records do not indicate the specific reasons for the postponements or provide transcript timestamps for when these decisions were made. No roll call votes were conducted, and no individual member voting positions were recorded for any of the items. ## Consent Agenda The Planning Commission reviewed agenda item IV.A, the Consent Agenda, which included several subdivision and development plans requiring consideration for approval or postponement. The consent agenda is typically used for routine items that can be approved without individual discussion, allowing the commission to handle multiple matters efficiently in a single motion. However, any commissioner or member of the public can request that an item be removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration and debate. During this portion of the meeting, the commission evaluated various subdivision and development proposals that had been submitted for review. These types of items commonly include preliminary plats, final plats, site plans, and other development-related applications that meet standard criteria and staff recommendations. The agenda item was classified as a discussion item, indicating that commissioners had the opportunity to review the materials and ask questions about any of the included proposals. The outcome was noted as informational, suggesting that the commission received updates on the status of various projects rather than taking formal action on specific approvals. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, which is typical for consent agenda discussions where staff presentations are often brief and commissioners may ask clarifying questions as needed. The lack of recorded transcript time suggests this may have been handled as part of the general meeting flow without extended debate or discussion. The consent agenda process allows planning commissions to efficiently manage their workload while still maintaining oversight of development activities within their jurisdiction. Items that require more detailed review or generate public interest are typically scheduled as separate agenda items for full discussion. ## Discussion Items The Planning Commission addressed agenda item IV.B, which covered various development plans under consideration. The discussion centered on two primary projects: Greendale Hills and Chancellor Subdivision. During the session, commissioners examined multiple aspects of these proposed developments, with particular attention given to traffic impacts and storm water management concerns. These infrastructure considerations appeared to be central themes in evaluating the viability and community impact of the proposed projects. The Greendale Hills project was among the plans reviewed, though specific details about the scope, location, or scale of this development were not detailed in the available materials. Similarly, the Chancellor Subdivision received attention from the commission as part of their ongoing review process. Traffic impact analysis emerged as a significant discussion point, reflecting the commission's focus on how new developments might affect existing transportation infrastructure and traffic patterns in the surrounding areas. This consideration is typical for planning commissions when evaluating residential or commercial developments that could generate additional vehicle trips. Storm water management represented another key area of focus during the discussion. This topic addresses how proposed developments would handle rainfall runoff, drainage, and potential flooding concerns - critical infrastructure considerations that affect both the development sites and neighboring properties. The agenda item was classified as informational in nature, indicating that the commission was receiving updates, reviewing materials, or engaging in preliminary discussions rather than taking formal votes or making final decisions on the projects. This type of discussion item typically allows commissioners to ask questions, raise concerns, and provide guidance to staff or applicants before projects advance to formal action items. The session provided an opportunity for the Planning Commission to thoroughly examine these development proposals and ensure that all relevant planning considerations were being adequately addressed before any potential future votes or recommendations. --- ## Decisions - **PLAN 2014-11F** — postponed (0-0): TUSCANY, UNIT 10 - located at 1970 Winchester Road - **DP 2014-13** — postponed (0-0): GROWTH PROPERTIES (AMD) - located at 100 Goodrich Avenue - **DP 2014-26** — postponed (0-0): KIRKLEVINGTON NORTH, TRACT B (AMD) - located at 858 Malabu Drive - **DP 2014-34** — postponed (0-0): LYNN GROVE ADDITION, LOTS 79 & 80 (AMD) - located at 105-107 Burley Avenue --- ## Full transcript With a little luck, this old truck will get me home today. With a little more, I'll still have this job tomorrow. Whether man says wet weekend, he just might be right. Baby! Not gonna allow the sugar! Bang, bang, bang on the door, baby! I can't hear you Bang, bang, bang On the door, baby Bang, bang, bang On the door, baby Bang, bang On the door, baby Bang, bang On the door Bang, bang On the door, baby Bang, bang You're what? Can't run Rusty Love Shack, Bella Love Shack Love Shack, Bella Love Shack Love Shack, Bella Love Shack Love Shack, Bella Love Shack Love Shack Right there, baby. Right there. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Keep drinking coffee, stare me down across the table While I look outside So many things I'd say if only I were able But I just keep quiet and count the cars that pass by You've got opinions, man, we're all entitled to, but I never ask. So let me thank you for your time and try not to waste any more of mine. Get out of here fast. I hate to break it to you, babe, but I'm not dry. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo I will call this meeting to order. It is May 8, 2013. I'd like to welcome everyone here. First on the agenda would be approval of minutes. We have minutes that's been emailed to commission members for May 13, 2014, and April 10, 2014. I've heard of no changes. If anyone has any, please let it be known now. Ms. Plumlee? Move approval of March 13, 2014 and April 10, 2014 minutes. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter. If you turn in your agenda to page 4, item 2A, DP 2014-13, growth properties, the owner would like to postpone for one month. He's looking at maybe submitting an alternate plan, so he would like a one-month postponement to the June 12th hearing. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2014-13, gross properties, for one month. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of DP 2014-13 until June 12, 2014. Please vote. The motion passes. Thank you. One more on page 5 of your agenda. Item D, 2014-26, Kirk Levington North. We request a one-month postponement to the June 12th hearing. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request? Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement for DP 2014-26 to the June 12th meeting. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until June 12th, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Cayley? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, item 1, page 1. This is plan 2014-11F, Tuscany, Unit 10. Request a one-month postponement to June 12th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, move postponement of Plan 2014-11F to June 12th. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement until June 12th of Plan 2014-11F Tuscany. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? seeing none i'll ask mr sally to mr chairman excuse me oh i'm sorry there is one more postponement staff i got ahead of myself yes sir if i may direct your attention to item e on page five at the bottom of page five dp 2014-34 lynn grove edition lot 79 and 80 amended this is property located at 105-107 Burley Avenue. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. Pardon me, Mr. Sousa. He has requested an indefinite postponement. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion. That would be for indefinite postponement. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, move indefinite postponement of DP 2014-34 Lynn Groh edition. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for an indefinite postponement DP 2014-34. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any others, Mr. Martin? No? Okay. Mr. Sally, if you would be so kind and walk us through the consent agenda. With pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Glad to report after several months we have a fairly lengthy consent agenda this month. There are several items on it. There are four record plats that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first of those appears on page 2, item C of today's meeting agenda. This would be plan 2014-22F, a final record plat for the new market property, Phase 1, Unit 1D, lots 10 through 28. This property is located at 1321 Deerhaven Lane. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. Page 2, item D, plan 2014-26F, an amended final plat for Springdale subdivision unit number 2, located at 659 Mitchell Avenue. On page 3, item E of your meeting agenda, this is plan 2014-27F, The Richardson property, Unit 8, Section 3, Lot 5. This is for property located at 376 Chalmersburg Road. And the final plat on your consent agenda is the very next item, Page 3, Item F, Plan 2014-28F, Denton Farm Incorporated, Unit 3A, Block E, Lot 30, Amended. This is a final plat for property at 274 through 278 Summersley Place. In addition, there are five development plans on your consent agenda. The first is on your meeting agenda on page 6, item F, DP 2014-35, an amended final development plan for South Broadway Place, Phase 4, Lot 1, for property located at 1080 South Broadway. The next item on your meeting agenda also is on the consent agenda, DP 2014-36, Lansdowne Merrick Subdivision Unit 16 Block E Lot 33 also known as the Shinoe Village Shopping Center. This is an amended final plan for property located at 1050 Shinoe Road. On page 7 item H this plan is on your consent agenda DP 2014-37 Lexington Medical Arts property and Professional Park also known as the Home 2 Suites. An amended final development plan for property with an address of 2368 Professional Heights Drive. On page 8, item K of your meeting agenda, this plan also is on the consent agenda, DP 2014-27, an amended final development plan for Kirk-Levington Hills Apartments located at 3050 Kirk-Levington Drive. And the final item on your consent agenda appears on page 9, item L of your meeting agenda, DP 2014-42, an amended final development plan for Lexington Mall, also known as Southland Christian Church. This property has an address of 2359 Richmond Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time, these nine items can be considered for approval on your consent agenda as recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask that one or more of these items be removed to allow for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Mr. Brewer, you got a question? Any comments? Let me check. Anyone in the audience wish to remove any of these or hear any of these commission members? Mr. Brewer? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for agreement to the consent agenda in full. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda as presented. please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes our first item that we're going to hear will be on page two it's Greendale Hills plan 2014-17 L as well as the development plan that is also listed at the bottom of page 4 DP 2014-23. You do have revisions before you. The development plan, you have a blue sheet with revisions. The record plat, you have an orange sheet with revisions, and you also have, you should have supplemental staff reports that the staff has sent to you, as well as a waiver request with the plat. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, members of the Commission, good afternoon. These two items relate to the same property, so the staff thought it would be beneficial if you considered them together. Of course, your actions on them certainly will be independent. The first is the record plat that appears on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda. This is Plan 2014-17F, a final plaid for Greendale Hills, Unit 2, Lot 98, with an address of 2930 Spur Road. That plaid is the very far exhibit, farthest from me on the left, and Mr. Martin will be presenting that plaid to you. There is also a requested waiver to the land subdivision regulations regarding that plat to allow the plat to proceed ahead of what I would call typical infrastructure improvements to the property. The other prop plan on your agenda that relates to the same property and a larger property at that appears on page four of your meeting agenda. It is item B. Pardon me, I've given you the wrong reference. It's item C, DP 2014-23, Greendale Hills Unit 2. This is an amended final development plan for property with an address of 2930 Spur Road. And that proposed plan is in the middle exhibit, and it's rendered. There is currently an approved development plan for this property. It is DP 2006-69, and that exhibit is closest to me on the right. Before I present all three of the plans to you, I will be covering the development plan portion of the staff presentation. And we've handed out to you ten exhibits, plus on the 11th page, a revision to the staff recommendation on the development plan that's pending before you. But I'd like to orient you to the location of this property. There are very few streets to it at the current time. There is only one stub street to the bulk of the Platte property. And so the aerial photographs will help orient you to the location that this property exists. This is a view of the northwestern portion of the urban services area. Here we have Georgetown Road. I-75 and 64 is here. Lee's Town Road is here. and Citation Boulevard is here currently terminating at Jaggy Fox Drive. There is a right of way procured for its extension over to Leestown Road and beyond where it is anticipated to hook up to Alexandria Drive on the southern end of the photo. Much of the subdivision you see here is the Masterson Station and Masterson Hills development that is bounded on the urban service area by Jacobson Park, by the Blackburn Correctional Facility. Masterson Station Park, thank you. Citation Boulevard is planned here, and there are two dots oriented to the location of that arterial that will be referenced in the next few photos. this is a photo of the same area but this identifies the arterial roadways that exist and are planned those are shown in red and the myriad of collector streets that are proposed in this area and which exist namely we have greendale road here lucille drive here Sandersville Road here and Masterson Station Drive here. Subject property again with the two dots for orientation is highlighted in yellow. We're now honing in a little closer on the subject property. This is still looking from the south. The right-of-way for Citation Boulevard is here. Lucille Drive is here. and this stub of cielo vista exists into the subject property what is driving the plat and the development plan before you is a proposal for an assisted living facility on a tract of about 7.3 acres this is a conditional use in the r3 zoning of the property and that has been approved by the board of adjustment and finally another photograph just looking from the opposite direction Again, we have Citation here, Cielo Vista stubbed into here, Estrella Drive stubbed into the site here. This is Lucille Drive, which is constructed to this point and to this point. It has one connection into the Masters and Station subdivision at that location. Thank you. The development plan that has been submitted for the property is on the north side of Citation. It does propose a new collector street, which would intersect with Citation at this location, and that collector would connect to Lucille Drive. What we saw in the photo, and you can still see, is the development here and here, which exists along with the homes on Cielo Vista and Estrella. The plan proposes the assisted living facility, which would be a two-story structure. It's associated off-street parking and two parking garages. That facility, of course, is a conditional use, not a principal use in the residential zone. The amendment to the plan involves the street system truncating Cielo Vista from the Collector Street to its current stub and changing the apartment layout that had been approved in 2006 and 2007, which was reapproved in 2012, and only having the apartments on this side of the Collector Street, again north of Citation. So that is the purpose of the amendment. A cul-de-sac is proposed at the end of this street here, and that would not continue through, although an emergency access is proposed into the parking lot for the assisted living facility. To walk you through the staff's exhibits, I think this will explain the staff's prior recommendation of postponement to you and also let you know that there is no more time for consideration of this plan. As you know, you have 90 days to review a plan once it's filed, and unless an applicant agrees to a longer period of time, you're required to act within that time. The first exhibit is a supplemental staff report that the staff provided to the Board of Adjustment a few weeks ago on the conditional use request for the assisted living facility. We sent this to you yesterday. You can see that the staff recommended approval of this facility. We have long thought since this plan was filed that this is a good use of this property, but it was subject to six conditions. And the first we've highlighted in gray was that there was an issue from the staff perspective with the cul-de-sac portion of this request. The staff did recommend approval subject to six conditions, but provided that the cul-de-sac be replaced by a street that could, in essence, continue through and be a connected street rather than a cul-de-sac. Staff made this recommendation at the Board of Adjustment meeting a couple of weeks ago, and the board made a change to that condition, and that is on page two of the staff exhibits. We've highlighted that change to you so you can see it in blue. they added a condition that the street be changed unless amended by the Planning Commission, and that was because the board understood and asked questions about whether or not the Planning Commission had jurisdiction over the street pattern in this area or whether the Board of Adjustment had that approval authority. So at the end of their discussion that day, they recognized the Planning Commission would be the body that would decide what the street pattern of Cielo Vista and the other streets would be in this area. So they made that change that you see there in blue. The next few pages highlight the staff exhibits that we gave to the board. We also shared these with the members of the subdivision committee last week at your meeting. The first are the currently approved plans, which is the one closest to me, that shows the initial thought for this area was that all the streets would be connected in a grid pattern, if you will, into the collector streets of Amaryllis Lane, as was initially proposed, and now Magnolia Springs is the current name on the plan. That plan, as I mentioned, was originally approved more than five years ago. The applicant's proposal in a similar exhibit is shown on the fourth page of the staff exhibits, and again, this was shown to the Board of Adjustment. The important thing about this set of staff exhibits, as much as the area that's got a circle on it, is the area in the upper right portion of the drawing, where you see a B1 designation. One of the things that's been of key concern to the staff is that the other end of Cielo Vista is a local street that intersects and bisects, in a way, an area that has been rezoned of about seven acres for neighborhood business use. There is a development plan that the commission has approved for this area. So Cielo Vista is not a typical residential local street, as it has a T-intersection in a neighborhood business area. That is significant to the staff because we believe residents of this area will want to get to the services and the businesses and the restaurants that may develop in that B1 area in the future. So that has long been a concern of the staff with the plat and the development plan that are before you today. The fifth exhibit that we have, again presented to the board, was the staff recommendation that Cielo Vista not terminate in a cul-de-sac, but instead be continued in a fashion. We think that continuing the street to the north, to Estrella Drive, is a viable option, that would allow this use to proceed and would still allow for a connected street system in this area. And again, we showed this to the Board of Adjustment. The sixth staff exhibit was labeled a staff alternative calling shift collector to the west. At the Board of Adjustment meeting, the staff could only theorize there was one reason why the applicant might be hesitant to make that change to their plan, and perhaps there was a need for a 7.3-acre site and some concerned that if more area was devoted to right-of-way in that upper right corner of their property that they would lose some acreage. And so the staff thought that it would be easy, since that Collector Street is not built, if it would be shifted to the west, that site acreage could be maintained for their proposed development. We thought that was a viable alternative. since that meeting. The staff also wonders if perhaps the cul-de-sac is being proposed because maybe there is an idea that perhaps some of the other streets may be proposed to be cul-de-sacs. And that may be true, but as I've mentioned, Cielo Vista is different than a lot of other residential streets because of this B1 area that it serves on the other end. It is not a typical local residential street. Last week at your subdivision committee, the applicant addressed the committee, told them of their plans to proceed with the property. And also there was some discussion that perhaps the staff recommendation would require some type of waiver to the land subdivision regulations. The next set of exhibits is to rebut that assertion. Page 7 of the staff exhibit shows the applicant's plan on the left, and superimposed in the cul-de-sac is the standard hammerhead cul-de-sac from the land subdivision regulations. What was of note to the staff in doing this was that on their site plan, at least, there may be some error in the building line notation. This was not taken from the development plan, but rather this was the site plan shown to the Board of Adjustment a couple of weeks ago. So there may be some issue with the building line proposed, but this is superimposed on their drawing the standard hammerhead that you see on the right side of page 7. The right side of page 7 shows you the three options in the land subdivision regulations for cul-de-sacs in the community, which is the hammerhead design, the standard or more typical, more common 40-foot radius, and then finally a 50-foot radius cul-de-sac with an island in the center. Those are the three that have been in the land subdivision regulations now for much more than a decade. On page 8 of the staff exhibits, This is the land subdivision regulation requirements for a street that would meet the radii requirements to extend Cielo Vista to Estrella in a manner the staff had recommended previously to the board and mentioned to the Planning Commission. There's a 250-foot radius requirement because Cielo Vista is not a loop street. If it were a looped street, meaning it had termination on the same street on each end, then that radius could be reduced to 100 feet. But obviously, Cielo Vista has street intersections on each end with different streets, so it does not qualify for that reduced radius. It's a 50-foot right-of-way, and also shown is the impact in the building line to what that type of a construction would mean. would also have a greater impact upon the developable area of the subject property. There is enough property, in the staff's opinion, to shift the building and the parking out of the way of this type of a design, but clearly it would affect the garage structure and might have more of an impact upon their proposed site drawing. The next exhibit on page 9 shows what that might look like if an island cul-de-sac were put there instead of the hammerhead that the petitioner is asking for. And what you see in blue is kind of the change to the property that would need to be a result to make that accommodated. At the top on Australia Drive, you'll see a little blue lot with a circle on it. That indicates a 40-foot shift of that street and an additional lot in that row of lots. So by shifting everything 40 feet to the west and adding an island cul-de-sac there, which would have 36 feet of pavement from the landscape island to the curb, this arrangement would be made. There would be no impact to the building line on their site, and they would have slightly larger site than what you're looking at today. We don't have many island cul-de-sacs in this area of the community. On page 10 is another cul-de-sac option straight out of the subdivision regulations. This is the more standard 40-foot pavement option. And on page 10, you can see there again would be very little impact to the 20-foot building line. The street could be turned, aimed to Estrella Drive, and installed in this fashion. These, to the staff's knowledge, would require no waivers to the land subdivision regulations, whatsoever for the development plan to be revised in any of these fashions. We think as a staff that there is a need to have this street connect. And the next exhibits will show you why. With Cielo Vista as a cul-de-sac, the residents that will live on the west side of this collector will have more limited options to get to the B1 area that's at the end of Cielo Vista. Those options would be to go north and across Estrella to that area or to use Lucille. They will be prohibited from using this avenue to get there. So the folks on Estrella will see more pedestrian and vehicular traffic from this alignment for folks living in this area and further west wanting to get to the services of this B1 area. Under the staff alternative, the only impact of eliminating this approved street connection here is to this portion of Estrella Drive and these lots which have not yet been constructed. Folks west would have the option of coming this way to the B1 using Cielo Vista, of using Estrella, or using Lucille Drive. Three ways to get there. Traffic being more evenly distributed and the existing residents on Estrella not really having to bear any brunt of any unforeseen increase in traffic that perhaps wasn't visible when this was developed several years ago. So this drawing here really explains the staff's strong recommendation that there be a connection to Cielo Vista. And again, it's related to this use that is approved at the opposite end of the street. The staff recommendation on the development plan has changed. It's on the blue sheet that has been mentioned. We have discussed many of the items. The timing and discussion, construction of the collector street system was vetted at the Board of Adjustment. And Mr. Martin will cover some of that discussion as well as he presents the plat to you, along with the construction entrances. There will be locations for construction entrances off of Citation. As I mentioned, Cielo Vista is the only sub-street to the property currently. We've discussed the local street termination, and we have discussed the Hammerhead cul-de-sac detail. The staff would ask for one additional condition to the 14 that are on your agenda that precede these discussion items, and that would be to eliminate the hammerhead cul-de-sac detail and continue Cielo Vista in a fashion consistent with the land subdivision regulations. I appreciate the opportunity to present our recommendation to you this afternoon. Mr. Martin, as I mentioned, is going to present to you the plat and the waiver. I would be glad to answer any questions now about the development plan portion or if you wish to hold those until after you hear from Mr. Martin. Thank you. Any questions at the moment? If not, we'll let Mr. Martin present. Thank you. Thank you. And I was asked to make an announcement. Bill, Sally, knew about it. There is a council meeting at 4.30 today, so we'll have to, or 4.45 or something like that, we'll have to vacate before that time. So, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, The record plat that is associated with this development is on page 2 of your agenda. And it is Plan 2014-17F Greendale Hills, Unit 2, Lot 98. You've been well oriented to the property. So very briefly, you can see here is the plat for the lot. that is the subject of the amended development plan for the assisted living. Here is future citation right-of-way. Here is the proposed termination of Cetal Vista in the Hammerhead Cul-de-Sac. This is the collector street proposed for this frontage that will hook up to citation and serve to connect the local street system that is in this area. It is approximately seven-acre tract. the plan has been reviewed, and of course we have standard requirements for a record plat, engineering traffic, urban forest or bike and ped, utility easements, those normal sorts of things. We also have a condition number eight, and these are on your revised handout, the bright orange. handout. Complete requirements of Article 4-5B once 30% of the infrastructure design is complete prior to certification. We did request some additional information that we have yet to receive on the full status of the infrastructure in the area. That is an article of your subdivision regs that asks that that report be delivered for your review at the 30% completion point of that infrastructure. Of course, we have documentation of division of water quality. And then there's a waiver request, number 10. And in fact, there are two waivers associated with this plan. The one that is referenced, Article 6-8B, is one that the staff identified. The request that the applicant has submitted to you, and it is your waiver report that should be at your at your seats is a request for a waiver of substantial completion. That's 4-7 D1 of your subdivision regulations. This is not an unusual request. This body has seen these a lot more frequently now. They tend to relate to the issue of transferring the property for ownership purposes. The most recent one you've seen, of course, is for the school board. In addition to that, you've seen them. One was recently associated with the apartment development in Tuscany off of Winchester Road, which was designed to allow the applicant to develop the public improvements in conjunction with the site improvements. The applicant has requested this waiver and has verbally stated that those are the reasons that they need to transfer the property and they would like to coordinate the public improvements with the development of the site. Again, the public improvements that are associated in this instance is primarily the public street system. It would be the cul-de-sac in this location, if approved, or the staff recommendation that it be continued, that to a public street, and could be subject to a substantial completion waiver request. Also, we have the collector street in this location. It's part of the public street system. And related to the infrastructure request and to somewhat a smaller component of that, this will have to be developed with stormwater system. And that was going to flow to a detention basin across the right-of-way on this property. That will be something that they will have to address with their improvement plans. There is always stormwater systems associated with your street system and your public street system. the other waiver that staff has identified, and it's somewhat unusual, but very, very appropriate staff feels in this case, and that is 6-8B of your subdivision regulations. And that is attached, of course, to your report. 6-8B addresses street continuity, And it states that the streets shall be related to topography and shall generally provide for the continuation of existing or dedicated streets in adjoining tracks. Staff's position that that is exactly the circumstances that you have before you today on this property. With the currently approved plan, it shows a well-developed and planned local street system that is designed in support of the collector street system. And these systems work in tandem with each other. They provide a level of service so that they all function better by providing options in different areas to access the services and other land uses in a neighborhood. Because this plan has been approved and re-approved and is currently active, staff thought that it was important to stress the fact that a waiver to 6-8B would be necessary. Now, that's not to say that cul-de-sacs aren't allowed. They are allowed, obviously, and they are built in many locations. However, cul-de-sacs are defined and regulated under your subdivision regulations for length and geometrics. And again, staff would just point out that 6-8B states continuity shall be maintained. So we added that waiver request to your report today. Condition number 11 is to note the Planning Commission approval. of the waiver, and it should be waivers and compliance with conditions, and then the condition of eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac termination of Cee-Lo Vista Road. Your waiver report addresses the conditions. The first one, staff is recommending approval of 4-7-D-1, substantial completion. As I stated before, it's not unusual, particularly in these days and age and with financial considerations. that they try to coordinate public improvements with large developments and expensive developments. And with that, we would point out that we are recommending two requirements to that approval. One, that the applicant post a performance warranty surety in conformance with the land subdivision regulations that would cover 100% of the construction costs for the public improvements in this development. And again, that's a standard requirement when you waive your subdivision regs. And then secondly, that no zoning compliance permit and therefore no occupancy permit will be issued prior to completion and dedication of the public improvements. We are recommending disapproval of the requested waiver of Article 6-8B, which is the street continuity. as Mr. Salley stated to you. And as we reiterate in your staff report, we believe that the local street system and connectivity is important in this area and vital to the functioning of the entire street system that is planned for this neighborhood. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? No, apparently not at this time. Okay, thank you. Applicant? I'm going to put a large picture up and he's handing out the smaller version for you to have there at your desk. Thank you. members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Kaley, the partners. With me is Jim Baker and Steve Hayden. They are the property owners and developers of Masterson Station. Also is Rob Bush with Magnolia Springs, the assisted living facility, and Tim Edwards with the Ramsey Development. I'm assisting in the assisted living facilities. Trying to be Brief with the time, I've handed out a small version. It kind of zooms in on the site we're talking about here. This is the full size that lets you see a bigger portion of Masterson Station, Greendale, Citation. Real quick orientation for everyone. In white is our proposed building. Double orange lines is Citation Boulevard, connecting out to Leastown Road, coming back this way to Georgetown, Newtown. The solid orange line that makes this L shape is what the developers have agreed to build and dedicate prior to occupancy of the assisted living. This is a collector street. It will tie to Lucille Drive, a collector street. It will tie to Citation Boulevard and Arterial. and then this orange square is the requested hammerhead. The handout that is also with that, just an 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper, is all the points of why we believe the hammerhead works and is a viable alternative to the connectivity. I'll run through these real quickly for the record, and then we'll turn it over to the rest of the guys here. We are in agreement with all the other conditions presented by staff. Cul-de-sac is our only issue. Board of Adjustment approved the use without a decision on the street connectivity. That issue is within the Planning Commission's review. The cul-de-sac is a legal design per the subdivision regulations. the length of the street with the cul-de-sac meets the subdivision regulations. Cul-de-sacs are not bad design. I feel weird having to say that, but it's true. And they are preferable to a majority of the home buyers. They're the first slots that go. Construction of the assisted living facility is estimated to take 12 months. That is important to note. It gives the infrastructure plenty of time to be constructed. The current property owners have agreed to construct the proposed collector street listed alternatively as Magnolia Springs or Amaryllis on our plans depending on the age of them, same street, to existing Lucille Drive. We also construct the off-site stormwater management areas and all other required public infrastructure prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the assisted living. The estimated completion of Citation Boulevard is within this calendar year. So Citation opening this year will provide another access way to the construction of the site and ultimately to the users of our assisted living facility. Upon completion of the overall area, there will be four collector streets, the improved Greendale Road, and an arterial all within 2,000 feet of this assisted living facility. Masters and Stations surrounding areas are a residential area except for the small B1 area off to the northeast there. Waiver is to allow the cul-de-sac and Portia Magnolia Springs to be constructed with the construction of the Ramsey's development assisted living facility. That's why the plat is so important. We need to get that property into the developers, Ramsey's development hands, so that they can start on that 12 month plus project of building building the assisted facilities. Construction traffic can access this property from public right-of-way via Lucille Drive. We have the overall property has Lucille Drive connecting it on two different sides and Citation Boulevard when it is completed. We'd also like to have Rob Bush present. I can ask any questions now, answering questions now, or you can wait and ask at the end of our presentation. Any questions for Mr. Cayley? Mr. Cayley, I have one at the moment. What are you all proposing to build as far as street connections at this time? That, at this time would be the orange to Lucille, citation and doing a terminus of celio vista a lot of times i'm up here asking for no cul-de-sac just leaving the street as is but they're willing to you know build that cul-de-sac as part of their site development okay as far as connecting lucille drive or australis all the way through you're not proposing to do that at this time correct by yeah for the access of this use building this collector to another collector and to an arterial i think is sufficient this use is driving the development plan just as masters and stations taken a few years the rest of what you see will fill in but it's the assisted living use that we're pushing so that would be built before construction would start no construction of the building construction of the infrastructure all of this happens simultaneously over the next 12 months plus so the construction for the building itself until the roads get built is going to have to come up and down in cielo vista no it can come in lucille it can come in the same way that the construction for the infrastructure will come. Lucille is built on this side. Lucille is built on this side. It just seems like to me that you'd have to at least build that part of Lucille in Magnolia Springs to be able to get construction traffic through there. Construction trucks for the buildings, no different than construction trucks for the road. Okay. Okay, very good. Continue on. Next. Who's? Rob Bush. Good afternoon, Commission. My name is Rob Bush. I am the Managing Director with Magnolia Springs. Rory is handing a quick handout that will include just a quick summary about Magnolia Springs, as well as some photographs that I'll refer to here in a little bit. I wanted to just begin to first thank the commission for allowing me to speak and to just give you a brief oversight of what Magnolia Springs wants to provide to the city of Lexington. Magnolia Springs is an assisted living provider. We are actually accredited through the state of Kentucky here in Kentucky. we provide upscale resident and assisted living services to seniors. Our facilities generally house about 97 to 98 apartments, and we'll generally have close to 100 residents that reside within our buildings. We've been serving seniors since 2009 when we opened up our first assisted living facility in Louisville, Kentucky. Our goal at Magnolia Springs is to enrich and celebrate residents' lives. That's essentially why we're in business as an operator of assisted living buildings. And we put a lot of forethought into not just the services that we provide, but also the design of the home that these residents are going to live in. I'll give you a little bit of information, just some quick facts. First of all, we operate currently three communities, two in Kentucky and one in Indiana. We have three more that are currently in development, including this project here in Lexington. Our building is on average about 95,000 square feet. It's a two-story model. It is generally developed with an upscale feel, but a home-like quality with very spacious hallways, tall ceilings, a lot of common area within the building, and a lot of privacy. We employ approximately 75 people per building with an annual average payroll of $1.5 million that we would be looking to bring into the city of Lexington as well, not to mention the assessed value on what the property would be. The average age of our residents, and this is the most important part, they're about 81 years old. And where people sometimes really get confused on what an assisted living facility is, the residents that live in our homes, we consider that is their home. They are very active. These are people that are out and about. They are living their lives and really enjoying it. And part of the design and what we're asking for in our design here is that we can deliver that product and that service to the residents. The outdoor aspects as it relates to the lifestyle and activities that we offer are extremely important. If you'll refer to the third page of the handout that I provided, there will be a couple of photographs. All of our developments, as well as our current facilities, are generally, I think our smallest one is seven acres. the other ones are at least over eight acres all the way up to close to 12 acres on the sites that we develop whereas our the actual physical plant the building does not take up that much space but we also believe that that we have we want to create an environment an outdoor environment that our residents can enjoy much like you would if you were living in your house These photographs will actually kind of highlight sort of the use that we plan for the land that would be surrounding the assisted living facility. So the first photograph will show a gazebo, and you can see how it attaches to a walking path. And the walking paths that we design is actually, if you refer to the very last page, there There's a landscape design. It's also right here. So generally, with all of our communities, we like to propose a walking path that our residents would use. And to give you a quick story, we have a resident in one of our communities in Louisville, Kentucky, and I was speaking to her about four weeks ago, and she told me that she has now walked to Florida and back. This lady is out there. She is 84 years old, a former tennis player, and she loves the outdoors. Just to kind of see what the impact is in terms of what we're doing for these residents and what this type of design means. The other pictures that you'll see include some of the, we have a shuffleboard. We have putting green outdoor patios both on some of the apartments as well as general common patios. So you can see here that we promote a lot of activity outside. And not just within on the physical grounds, but also throughout the community. These are very actively involved seniors. So, essentially, what we are proposing in the use of this space is to actually deliver that product to the residents that we're going to serve, that we want to bring to Lexington. One of the critical things for us, though, is timing and getting into the Lexington market. We've done a lot of analysis of this market. Most of the, generally, really all of the current senior living providers, assistant living providers in Lexington are on the south side of town. And we would be the first provider, assuming that we could get approval on this project, to be placed in the north side of Lexington. And would begin actually bringing part of the development to this North End. and what we believe is a much or a high-demand product and service to help service the senior community in the northern part of Lexington. So I'm going to open it up for any questions. Any questions for Mr. Mitchell? Mr. Mayhaw. At this point, no, I don't think so. There may be some later. Okay, thank you. Thank you. My name's Jim Baker. Steve Hayden and I have developed Masterson Station. We've been working in the area for over 20 years. Upon meeting Magnolia Springs people, Ramsey Corporation, they asked us if we had a site that we could work out for them. And we showed them the site originally, which was five acres. They said we can't put the facility on five acres. We need seven acres. Thus, the creation of this site plan that's shown here. Steve and I went to Louisville before we agreed to sell this property to the Ramsey Corporation. We wanted to see what was going in our subdivision because I consider myself, and I think Steve, the guardian of that area because we own quite a bit of acreage out there yet. We have developed 2,300 homes so far. There's 2,300 residents out in that area, and that's just in Masterson Station. We also have part of Greendale Hills. It all started with this. The original plan, if you want to really go back to the original plan, there was no street here, and there was no street here, and there was Lucille Drive down here. that was on the zoning map that showed all this apartments. Normally you don't take a street through the middle of an apartment complex. I did not bring that plan with me today. I wish I would have. But I wanted this not to regress, but this is important. Ramsey said we like to do things right, not half right. So you can see their plan, and I think it makes sense. We're hung up on this blasted street, and out there we have five major streets within 2,000 feet of this site. We have Citation Boulevard, which should be completed hopefully by the end of this year. But even if it's the end of next year, it takes them at least 12 months to build their facility. You have Magnolia Springs, which is a street that Steve and I will put in as the developers. Lucille Drive, which we have agreed to continue and tie into Magnolia Springs. Melundi is a street approximately two blocks away. That's a collector street. And Magnolia Springs is a collector. Lucille is a collector. Melundi is a collector. And approximately 2,000 feet away, there's Sandersville Road, which is a collector. And I've looked at a lot of subdivisions in Lexington, and residentially speaking, I can't find that many major streets in that close vicinity to one another. So I think that the lack of one street continuing through is really not necessary. To make something like this right, this is a $10 million facility. I was at PVA this morning, so I got it from the horse's mouth. The annual taxes on this place is $116,000 a year. If 35 homes were built in that same seven-acre track, you would get less than half that revenue from Stanford property taxes. I think this is one of the highlights of the whole area out there. The building is fantastic. I think you have a picture of it. All the utilities are to this site today. The electric's there, the water's there, and the sewers are there today. There's one street that's stubbed into it, which is Sierra Vista. However, within 150 feet of the property line, there's another stubbed-in street, approximately right here. And we own the land here. So as far as construction traffic, it can come to the end of this street and be on their site within 150 feet. You also have this road here. And as we develop out here, which we're going to start very quickly on this street, citation will be underway. It's about 50 percent complete right now. and I think it will be open by the end of this year. They're hoping to get started on their facilities sometime in August and they do their building geared to the weather and the year. They'd like to get started early enough to get it under roof before cold weather and if you get pushed in through later months, that's what part of the urgency is. And that's about all I have. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Baker? Let me ask you this, Mr. Baker. I still haven't heard you're saying that your applicant wants to do it the right way. I still haven't heard. We've got two alternative plans here showing a connection to Estrellas. I haven't heard why that connection cannot be made. Well, anything can be done, but when you do that, it takes away from the seven-acre site, you know, more blacktop, less greenway, green space, and that sort of thing. You know, it can be done. You know, the street can be put through, but this facility may not be built. Can we turn this street and come through here? Yes, we can do that, but it does take away some of this area and brings the street a little closer into the property, so it's cutting off a small section. Have you all looked at the two alternative plans with the cul-de-sac turning and going down? I have. One of them even shows, and I'm just asking, one of them shows the creation of another lot so you're not losing a lot. And they've got an alternative plan where you even shift Magnolia and you're regaining the acreage that you may be losing on the other side. I'm just asking. Okay, well, I'm glad you asked because shifting Magnolia does nothing. That's the front of the building. It doesn't really create what they were trying to do here to the side. you can see if this street was pulled out I guess this may be able to be shifted this way but it just works out better relative to the building and access to the area when you turn a street like this and go through there's more lots than one lost first of all it goes through one lot but then this creates a corner lot and a corner lot requires a bigger setback this is also another setback. So you're talking about approximately three lots and some land here that I'm not sure what we do with it. I don't know if we can get a lot in there or not. And I just did see that plan today. Okay. Can I add on to that just one thing? Yes. Be brief. Go back to it. I don't know if everyone can see this. Ascelio Vista turns up. What's really gained by, I mean, what's gained by it? Because you're still, if this is the draw, you've got the collector. You've got a collector. You've got a local. I mean, to have that doesn't seem to be any different than having them do whatever the other action would be. And plus, you have citation hitting Melindy right down here near that B1 use. Okay. Thank you. Let me, yeah, real quick. Just one other point regarding, you asked the question of the alternatives that were proposed. And really, as the operator of this facility, one of the reasons why it introduces vehicular traffic right to the site, whereas we already have two streets, Citation, which is Main Artillery, and Magnolia Springs Way bordering the property, which is already basically two sides of the property where there's going to be vehicular traffic. So by putting in the roundabout or cul-de-sac drive-thru introduces, again, another side of the property that has vehicular traffic, which if any of you have homes, do you want to have basically a street on three sides of your home? So that's what we need to consider. This is their home, and so we're trying to provide it to where they do get enough privacy to be able to enjoy not only their apartments, their patios, the outdoor area. Thank you. Thank you. I started this, so I've got to let you finish. I forgot something. I met with all the neighborhoods, or we had a neighborhood meeting at Masterson Station Subdivision. There were approximately 50 people there. As far as I know, we have zero opposition and 100% support of the people that I've talked to. I went to the neighbors who are mostly impacted by this facility. the people along the street they're in favor of this being hammerheaded the people back here which is not shown there's a little closer but there's houses here one comment from one of the neighbors back there says hey i like that that building is going to be farther away from me if if there was a house built there so they they're in support we have no opposition and i sure hope you would approve our plan. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Penn, you got a question? Yeah, Roy, let me ask you a question. On the Hammerhead, that'll still be on the property, won't it? It'll be a dedicated public street. But it'll be on your property, though? It will be on the Platt property that we transferred to Ramsey Development so that they can start their work, and then it will have to be dedicated to public right away at some point. I guess my question is this. Where are you going to terminate Cielo Vista. The Hammerhead. So it'll be on the property? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I had a question for Rob. Yeah. And you touched on this. I guess my question would be about do you view that street more secure for your residents than if it were through the street? And you said something about traffic going through there, but do you think that, I mean, is that a more secure termination than if it went through for the residents living in there? Well, I mean, More security of intruders, I guess, or people that don't belong in there. Right, right. At a certain point, again, the more access points that there are that come into, and definitely a through street is going to bring in more traffic and potentially more security issues that we have. So to answer your question, yeah, I mean, it's definitely a point that it could be brought up. Yes, ma'am. Rory, I have a question for you. On that hammerhead, even though it is there on the property, is that not possibly a necessary evil to, and I don't mean that in a bad way back there, Mr. Fireman, to be able to get the fire and safety people in there, you need another access point. Maybe they're in the back to get to the backside of the building. Backside of the building. I mean, the way I'm looking at it, to come in there to the hammerhead. the we've been talking with the fire department um we're showing that for the building itself they are going to have access this way fire department wishes us to run some sort of drive lane down to this point off of this end as well we don't need to have 360 right they're wanting us to add more asphalt and we'll have to do something over here as part of their sign off and the hammerhead is the correct legal termination of a public street. So that would allow, instead of leaving the stub, that would give everyone a chance to turn around on public right-of-way and head back out. Okay. It would allow apartment access? Yeah, we're talking about having an emergency access that would connect this way if, I don't know, if this all falls down, they have to go out some way. Right. Okay. Thank you. All right. Other questions at this point? others in the audience that would like to speak in regards to this plan? No one? Okay. Very good. Traffic, you want to weigh in at this point? Not really? Okay. Fire department. We don't ask for him to come forward often, so he's taking advantage of this. I'm Captain Greg Lingle with the Fire Department and Water Control Office. Fire doesn't have an issue with any of the plans that were presented. I think we can get access to the property for many of them. Mr. Cayley did present our big issue was having the internal road going around the property. But other than that, we don't have an issue. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. If there's no other questions at this point, no one else in the audience wishes to speak, I'll go to, I think, rebuttal from the staff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our presentation to you was heavily on the graphics, and I do have three rebuttal points to make using graphics as well. The first item was Mr. Cayley's comments about the collector street system and what they plan to do. The staff does not have any issue with the plans for the collector streets here. We think that's a good way to develop this area. Our issue, I hope, that we've been able to make clear to you, is about the local streets in this area. They are infrastructure as well. And his question toward the end, what is gained by asking the cul-de-sac to connect? As we have shown, we have no problem with the cul-de-sac here, as this exhibit we presented earlier illustrates. That is a modified cul-de-sac. What is gained is the other graphic where the folks on Estrella don't have to bear all of the traffic burden by cutting this street off. That's what's to be gained by the staff alternative. If we could lift to the second graphic. I'm not sure if this was, I need both of them on there, please. If you could slide, thank you. Perfect. I'm not sure if this was Mr. Bush or Mr. Baker, where they're trying to do things right and not half right. I would ask you to look at the two hammerheads in these exhibits. The landscape plan looks great. Staff has no problem with that. But that appears to us to be half of a hammerhead. The hammerhead on the left is the one straight out of the subdivision regulations, and no waiver has been requested of the hammerhead design. So I'm not sure how the hammerhead on the right gets built without a waiver to the standard design that's shown on the left. So that's our other rebuttal point. The final point as to the increased tax revenue from this use, the staff has identified that this is a good use at this location. And I would just remind the commission that at every point, other than postponement of the plans for these technical reasons, the staff has offered recommendations for approval of this site with the one change. Thank you very much. Other questions? If not, I'll... Okay. Okay. Mr. Cayley? Answer to the hammerhead possibility? I believe the one, well, I know that theirs is just an exhibit. Our development plan will be the guiding hammerhead design. I think that's the rebuttal of the bill's question. When we get the development plan in there and we get construction plans, we'll have a legal hammerhead. Okay. So if the hammerhead goes, you're building it according to regulations, is what you're saying? Yes. Yeah, there's no mentor or waiver of the size of that. Okay. All right. Anything else from the commission? Yes. Yes, sir. If you're forced to adopt one of the staff recommendations, is there a way to modify the development plan so you still retain the outdoor amenities that are on the upper portion of the drawing? If you grant permission or approval of this plan, per all of staff's recommendations, and both of the developer and the owner agree it's still financially viable, then I will have to make the development plan meet those requirements. So yes, if that's this body's decision and they're still agreeing to go forward with the project, we'll shift, push, and pull until we get everyone happy. Any other questions? All right, that raises a question for the developer. How would you react to the staff's recommendations? In regards to... I need you to come to the microphone, Mr. Mitchell. As the operator of that facility, I believe that, you know, Our biggest concern about, you know, turning that into essentially a through street is the introduction of additional vehicular traffic, you know, through that area. And that's, I mean, it's not ideal. And quite frankly, that's one of the things that, you know, we had a big concern about that initially. There's a lot of ways that you can shift and move this building to kind of fit all these amenities on there. But, again, when you're putting a street on three sides of your home, it's not ideal. So, you know, in that regard, it's something that we would have to very seriously consider, potentially not doing the project with an introduction of that street with extra traffic. Thank you. You're welcome. Let me follow up on that. you were talking about introduction of the street if that went forward. The pictures from the other places and so forth, and I believe on that plan, the right side and back side, isn't it fenced? Aren't you proposing a fence there? Sure. Yes, there is a fence that's being proposed around that property. And is it stockade fence, solid fence, foreboard fence? Have you thought it that far? Honestly, it's, Tim, what kind of fence? I talked to another member of Ramsey Corporation who's not here today, and I visited the site in Louisville, and they have a solid wood fence with a sculptured top. I can't think of it, scroll top. Okay. Very attractive. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. I guess nobody's, we don't care about cost, I guess. Doesn't it cost a lot more to run that street up through there and burn a lot? And, I mean, that's a lot of cost, isn't it? I mean, it's not just a minor expenditure over the hammerhead. Well, there's a minimum of three lot losses, and then we have this little no-man's land right here. If this street were to turn and go through here, then you've got this piece of land right here. It's not really a suitable lot. I'm not saying you couldn't make it a lot. I'm just saying it's kind of strange. And then when you go through here, you lose a lot, and then you have to modify each lot on each side. It takes more lots than you think. It also takes away some of their greenway, their green space. Thank you, Mr. Baker. Any other questions? If not, I'm going to close. Yes, ma'am? I'm sorry? One quick one for the applicant. The hammerhead, you said you could make it to regulation so it would handle the fire and the garbage. Yes. It's about coming down there and turn around since it's a dead end, so to speak. Yeah, it will be within the rules of regulations. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? If not, I'm going to close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion among commission members, comments, and then motions. As far as motions, depending on which way they go, we need three. one for the plat, one for the development plan, and then also the waivers. And if I may, let me back up just for a second. I do have one question I'd like to ask, I guess, Mr. Cayley, following up on what I was asking as far as construction traffic. And the reason I'm doing that was asking those questions. My concern would be construction traffic on the Cielo Vista Way. Would it be agreeable to have no construction traffic on the Cielo Vista Way? Other than whatever would need to be there for the construction of that hammerhead. Okay. I think that's agreeable. I mean, we'll have to have trucks at the end, gravel and asphalt and that sort of stuff. Yeah, exactly. Okay. So, you know, that's the reason I was asking as far as timing. I can't see construction traffic going to build the building on a dirt or mud street. I think something's got to be done. But by the same token, I don't think construction traffic on the Cielo Vista way would be appropriate either. And hopefully citations finished on time and a lot of the trucks would be there. All right. Thank you. So thank you for allowing me to ask that question. any comments thoughts and or motions from anyone you ready for a motion if there's no comments okay can we comment after your motion no you want comments before better comment before you certainly can yeah that's what motion is the second thing is up after the second that's what i was that's what i was getting at i don't want to be insensitive to the the project but the overall concern here is what works best for the neighbors around the project not what works best for the project the planning commission's job is to build the best neighborhood they can build and access is part of that so it's fine to ask the question how much does it cost is it a deal break or whatever it is but our concern is more with what do we need to do to make this project a good project for the neighborhood and so I don't know yet which way I want to go on this thing but I'm going to look at it from that perspective and that's the comment I'm going to make before the motion because I don't have any idea which way the motion is going to go other comments Yes, ma'am. In looking at the situation, as I see it, and I understand we're supposed to be looking at the overall picture, number one, I think the people on Sierra Vista would probably be very happy to have that hammerhead there at the end of the street and maybe not have through traffic and have an issue there where they have a private street that's taken care of by the city. I think also probably Sierra Vista and Australia and that little area in there is probably going to be very happy to have this kind of a facility there rather than all the traffic that they might have from an apartment complex. So that's kind of my thought on it. Sure, we'd like to have the through street to be able to accommodate maybe a little more traffic or whatever. But to Mr. Cayley's point, I mean, you're going to come up Magnolia, you're going to hit Australia, and then you're going to come back down on whatever that little connector area is, and then back down Ciela Vista Road. And so you're just going to be kind of circumventing the property. And in my mind, it's like, why would you do that when you've got the other connector streets? So that's my thought on it. Other comments? Let me just say, one, I don't think the facility is at issue here. I think connectivity is at issue. You know, I've got a concern that, to me, it seems like Cielo Vista way is a, you know, especially right now in Main Street coming into the neighborhood. and now we're thinking about terminating it. And by the same token, you know, turning it, taking it to Estrella, is that benefiting? I think some. Is it enough? I don't know. But I think connectivity, obviously, is the concern here. And we'll see in a minute which way the Planning Commission goes. Any other comments? A question, Mr. Chairman. Is there any knowledge, any way to determine how likely people are to follow the traffic pattern that connects Sierra Vista through a cul-de-sac? it seems to me I mean I can see that's a lot of gyrations to go through there to follow that path I would say that question would need to be answered about traffic more than me just curious What was the question one more time? I heard you, but I wasn't sure I was following you. The question was the traffic pattern through the cul-de-sac that connects Siamma Vista. Is that a path that is convenient and likely to be followed, or will people tend to use, I can't remember the name of the other street, and just go straight through? Right. Sela Vista now is the through street. Driver expectation is that if you're going from the business district, it is the through street. the expectation that they're going to turn off of that they're going to end up going if we cul-de-sac it they're going to go down there the residents are going to hate it at that point they call our office and say you know put a no outlet sign up they're coming down my street but the way that the street is designed now the geometry of it it goes straight towards the cul-de-sac instead of turning. That is the main street. You're talking primarily about traffic that originates in the business district. Yes, sir. And I understand what you're saying. I was thinking of traffic originating on the other side going to the business district. Right, and that, you know, when I was sitting back there, I was looking at it both ways too. when you think of the traffic coming from the business district, that Silla Vista is a straight path. And there is an intersection crescendo. I couldn't even pronounce the crescendo way. At that intersection, it's actually a Silla Vista that appears to be the straight movement. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments or I'll call for a motion. Mr. Cravens. Yes, sir. We'll make a motion for approval of Plan 2014-17F, the final subdivision plan, and eliminating number 12. This is a motion for the final subdivision plan, plan 2014-17F. And I guess by that I mean number 12. I want to allow the hammerhead right there. I want the hammerhead. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. First of all, I think this is a really, really neat project. In fact, I'm almost at stage five now, so I'm ready to go. I don't want to kill a project on the basis of a hammerhead versus a thing. I wish there was some way that that could be accommodated, that we could keep the connectivity and yet at the same time preserve the plan as such. But I know you're making the motion. Yeah, you spoke to a motion that hadn't been seconded yet. Mr. Parliamentarian. I'll second it. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2014-17F with 12 conditions, changing 12 to read to allow the proposed cul-de-sac termination of Cielo Vista Way. Any questions regarding the motion? Any other discussion? If not... Mike, I've got a question. Yes, sir. If the staff recommendation for approval with number 15 on the blue sheet, and you're going against the staff recommendation, do you have to have reasons? Well, we're working on the final subdivision plan on the orange sheet right now, and the findings, I think, would be on the waiver, Ms. Wade, correct? So we're okay. All right. So any other questions? If not, once again, this is for approval of Plan 2014-17F. It's a revised conditions on the orange sheet with 13 conditions changing number 13 to read allow the proposed cul-de-sac. Mr. Cravens? Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. It looks like it passes on a 5-4 vote. Mr. Cravens, you want to continue? Yes, sir. Waiver? Well, you want the waiver or you want the development plan? I'd like the waiver next. Okay. I'm going to move approval of the waiver to Article 4-7, Plan 2014-17F. And you want the other waiver with it? Yes. And also approval of waiver Article 6-8, and I have findings for that, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Can I read them? Please read them. All right. Findings for approval of the requested waiver 6-8, granting the waiver will not negatively impact public health and safety as proposed street system, as well as the existing street system will provide for adequate street connectivity and access to the site and surrounding area due to the extensive collector street system in the area. So move. We have a motion for approval of the waiver. Second. Both regarding Article 4-7D-1 and Article 6-8B and seconded by Ms. Mundy. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes, 5-4. Now the development plan. Move approval of DP 2014-23 development plan. And down on number 15, it should say not eliminate hammerhead, but allow, I guess, hammerhead cul-de-sac detail. And also adding the last, was that number? Indeed, 16. 16. There will be no construction traffic on CeeLo Vista Way. Motion's been made for approval of the revised conditions. on the blue sheet adding one condition. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been seconded. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. If you'll allow us, we'll take just a very brief recess and be back in just a moment. I think we can negotiate this, Cal. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. BOOM! I will remind everyone we do have to vacate about 4.30, so we're going to try and move on. Our next plan is on page 4. It's DP 2014-16, Chancellor's Subdivision, the Springs. You do have revised conditions that are on a green sheet. There's 21 conditions on this. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 4, item B, DP 2014-16, the Chancellor's Subdivision, also known as the Springs, amended. This is an amended final development plan of a piece of property I know the Planning Commission is very familiar with at this time. We have Harrodsburg Road in this location with its intersection with Lane Allen and Rosemont Garden. Now, which side of the road you're on and what you prefer to call it. Here we have Mitchell Avenue that comes through this location. You recently approved a townhouse development right here. And there was a plaque you just approved today on this property, the Springdale subdivision. That is to orient you. This is the existing CVS, McDonald's, which you have approved on a previous development plan, and of course Turfland Mall is across the street. The development plan that you see before you is proposing the development on this part of the property is a significant revision from the one originally presented to your subdivision committee in that they've added this portion of the property. Originally, what you had was just this portion, and you had two fast food restaurants being proposed. They have subsequently amended this plan, and now we have a 12,000-square-foot retail building in this location. Fast food remains here, Raising Cane's fast food restaurant. It's a little over 3,000, about 3,600 square feet. And in this location, and this is a final development plan, they are now proposing what staff understands to be a goodwill store in this location. It is 13,000 square feet. You can see that there's the existing access point into the property here at Harrodsburg Road. There's a deacceleration lane that is associated with this development that will need to be constructed to handle traffic into the site. There is access on the Mitchell Avenue at this location. This is existing. This is an existing one that will be modified to serve this area of the development. This plan was reviewed extensively. We've met with the applicant extensively to discuss concerns on the plan. It's one of the reasons you see this revision. The initial strong concern that has always existed on this property, as I'm sure this body is aware, has been the traffic impact of this development. Starting from the very beginning with CVS and continuing as this property is developed. And what was originally submitted to you with the drive-thru was of tremendous concern to the staff and traffic engineering and to the neighborhood with the tremendous impact that drive-thrus do generate in the area. Again, this is a response to those concerns. They have modified the circulation. We now have, you can see, a proposed entrance in this location that will bring them into this lot D, as it's known. The drive-through will operate in this fashion. There is access back out to what is, in effect, a service road across the front of the property. This area is a proposed loading dock, dumpsters. The blue is detention, underground detention. You may recall detention, water quality have been issues facing this property, even though it's a redevelopment project, and that it began, CVS did underground detention and water quality features. McDonald's has too, and this applicant is also addressing those issues by proposing detention in this location. You may recall there's a large spring in this location here on this back of this property that flows into this area. It's piped. It daylights down in here before it goes under New Circle Road. Interesting enough, we've highlighted this blue spot for you. Spring exists on this property as well. They investigated that and discovered a spring box. And I believe they may want to elaborate at least six pipes in the area, one of which was flowing. So there is water, a spring that is flowing. It was discovered, obviously, when the site was originally developed and the spring box was put in. They will have to address that with a new spring box and a pipe, and they'll take it in this direction over here as well, just like the other. But that was an interesting discovery to both the staff and the applicant. You can see areas here where they're showing landscaping. Staff was initially very concerned about their ability to meet the tree canopy. We believe that they can do that now successfully on this site. They're proposing, as I stated, 13,000 square feet, 3,000 plus, and 12,000. They are also providing parking, of course. And the parking you can see is they are providing 36 in this location, 37 in this location, and 60 on this location. And this is going to become important with several conditions that staff is offering to you on your green sheet. The plan has been recommended for approval. It's subject to standard sign-off conditions for a development plan. Again, a final development plan, as you can see from your handout. There are several cleanup conditions. Removing a building envelope notation, it is no longer necessary. Denote the height of proposed buildings in feet. They're proposing one-story buildings. It's important to staff's estimation that they denote the height of that one story. the addition of all building exterior dimensions and labeling any canopies that are planned. They need to denote, and this is number 14, that the easement conflict shall be removed by the certification of an amended plat, and that's prior to issuance of a zoning compliance permit or a CO, and that is specifically for Lot D. We have highlighted for you in orange the two easement conflicts that exist for this proposed Goodwill retail store. And you might notice that this is a storm sewer easement that comes through here and goes down to this one that exists parallel, as I mentioned, the drainage along this site and also the spring drainage that feeds into this area in daylights. There was a detention discussion, you may recall, on the townhouse property, and they are providing detention along with water from Mitchell apparently maybe utilizing this easement. When they develop the property, they'll have to adjust that and provide for another easement to accommodate the drainage. This is a utility easement that is referenced only by a deed book and page number. It dates back to the 1950s, we believe. But again, those conflicts will have to be addressed by a minor plat prior to occupancy of the building. We received this revision yesterday around 4 o'clock. I will add that the applicant met with the neighborhood, and that was one reason I believe staff received the plan at such a late date It was they did want to meet with the neighborhood and address their concerns. And I know that you all heard a lot from the neighborhood. They've addressed you on these other development plans. And it's good to know that the applicant has been meeting with them and trying to address their concerns. Some of those concerns, as you know, again, as I stated, are traffic related. The applicant has already submitted a check to the Division of Traffic Engineering to assist in the funding of traffic calming on Mitchell Avenue. And again, that's an aspect of previous approvals, and they are participating in that with addressing that problem as well. The number 15 is to denote the need for a revised traffic generation study prior to issuance of a zoning compliance permit. This goes back to the original approval of CVS where this body stated they were concerned about traffic impacts of the development of this property. And up throughout the process, you have been given numbers about the various impacts of the proposals. In this particular case, we did receive some information, perhaps not a full-blown study per se, but they gave us numbers originally based on the drive-thrus. Now, we've not received any new numbers based on the retail operation. But again, that is of a lesser impact than what a fast food and a drive-thru would have. However, that has been something this body had asked for on previous plans. So we have that condition added as well. We have a condition that they denote the technology, in essence, the type of speakers that will be used here in terms of noise. You may recall that McDonald's stated to this body that they use state-of-the-art. its speakers. They respond to the sound of your voice and adjust themselves accordingly. With me, they'd probably be very loud because I tend to be a little loud and I can't hear. But we're concerned, and I always have been, about the relationship of these type of things to the residential area around them. And that leads me to an exhibit that we have for you that addresses, and it's up. I appreciate that they've put that up. That leads us to concerns. And some conditions that we've placed on the back of the green handout that we gave you. And those are our concerns, again, about the relationship of the development to the residential neighborhood that surrounds it. Now, this is a commercial use, I believe, an insurance office or something. It's been here for years. But all through here we have residential and we have residential uses. We have single-family homes. What we are recommending, you can see from your exhibit, that a loading dock, which is about 84 feet or so in this location, loading docks be a minimum of 100 feet. That's the 100 dimension that you see on the exhibit. The dumpster. And as you may recall, we had a considerable dumpster discussion here, and we've had dumpster discussions on several other plans in that relationship to residential properties. We're recommending that dumpsters in there in close. be a minimum of 60 feet from the residential property. And last, with the parking, we're concerned with its relationship as well, and that it be a minimum of 40 feet away from the residential uses. Now, I'd like to add that staff is aware. As I mentioned before, there's been a neighborhood meeting. The applicants met with them. We understand there may be an agreement on the parking. Now, staff's not a party to that. But we want you to know, and I'm sure they'll be happy to elaborate on that, that there apparently has been some discussion and perhaps an agreement with the neighborhood. Staff believes this could be tweaked and flipped and moved away from the residential area. These 10, we've been told, are intended to be employee parking. We're not sure where they may go on the property, if at all. But I would point out again, they have surplus parking on this property. So if those, in fact, did go away, they would still have plenty of parking to serve the proposed retail use in this location. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. That's the purpose of the exhibit again. It's all oriented to activities related with retail and commercial development and its relationship with the residential neighborhoods. And frankly, sometimes those things get a little bit lost in the bigger discussion. when we discuss the traffic impact and the stormwater concerns that exist on this property. With that, we are recommending approval of your plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Mr. Martin, number 11, remove building envelope. You said that was not necessary now. Yes, sir. That relates to the old-ruled rafferies. My only question is, we can delete that? But they need to delete it from the plan. They left it on the plan graphically, and they just need to take it off the plan. That's a cleanup condition. Okay. Okay. Other questions? Applicant? Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. we've reviewed the staff recommendation and items 1 through 17 we're definitely in agreement with and for the record i would like to add one thing to the recommendation where it says that we're only going to redevelop parcel c we would like to include parcel d as well So where it says note on the staff recommendation, it says the purpose of this amendment is to redevelop Parcel C. Okay. And just add A and D. Okay. some of the conditions have been met and indeed we did turn in a revised plan late yesterday but most of the conditions were already met at that time some of the conditions that have been removed. 11 is we have removed the old building envelope. 15 denote revised traffic generation. I have for the record a revised trip generation that I can turn in to staff and I'm happy to report that the traffic numbers are greatly reduced So I think everybody will be happy with that. We have had a lot of meetings with staff with engineering, traffic engineering, and fire, and I feel like those have all gone well, and we've made a lot of headways on the plans. The items 18 through 21 on the agenda we just found out about today. So I guess we're prepared to discuss those. And I've got the owner representative here, Mr. Tom Johnson, and he'd be available to ask any questions as well. I know staff would like to see the loading dock 100 feet away, and I'm not sure how that would be possible. I think there's plenty of precedents where loading docks are closer than 100 feet, as well as the dumpsters. And I would point out that all of our parking is outside landscape easements. It meets code. And we do have ample landscaping shown to buffer that, but we can discuss that more if you have questions. Do you have anything to add? I appreciate it. Take the microphone. There you go. Hi, my name is Tom Johnston. I'm with CRM Companies, the development company for the project here, as well as Springs Partners, the ownership entity for this development. I appreciate everybody letting us come and speak for you all today and go through in detail our side and some of the information. We want to try to explain and discuss the last issues that Matt had mentioned that were brought to our attention this afternoon. One of the things I wanted to also note, if we could please, at the top, where it talked about the revised development plan less than 24 hours ago, we have been using this plan, the updated plan, where we changed it from two fast food restaurants to this layout. And Matt can speak more specifically as to the time in which we originally submitted that change for people to review. But we did turn in a couple changes that were commented on at the subcommittee meeting last week that were taking an arrow in a one-way direction out. Matt, what are the other two? We need you, Matt, we need you in the microphone. Some of the items that were discussed were changing directional arrows, making the Keynes restaurant a one-way entrance where we had a two-way. I believe another one was remove interior walls on the Goodwill building, which is building shown as D. We had the floor layout on there, and we've removed that. An additional comment was we did indeed find a spring on the rear of the property, and we've located the spring on our plan, and that's what you see in blue in front of the Goodwill store. So those are the changes. Again, I just wanted to point out that we have used this layout for a while, and we have been very upfront and open in trying to get with all the different groups to get their comments and thoughts so we could, in fact, make changes during the process. We've also been in contact with the Homeowners Association, and Ms. Bergman is here, I believe, to speak on their behalf, and we've done this throughout the process. and feel like that after our meeting this week that everybody was pleasantly surprised at our latest revision and all the improvements that we made and getting rid of that extra fast food restaurant definitely put a big smile on everybody's faces because of the reduction in the traffic. And I think, in all honesty, that was probably the most concern because of the pedestrian and vehicular safety in the area. but what i did want to speak specifically on items 18 through 21 on the back as shown on the exhibit here as you can see unfortunately the 100 foot request that they're wanting or suggesting is not possible based on the layout and unfortunately is it's just not a viable option for the space that we have in order to you know proceed with the development as we've shown here. And again, we're just trying to use the property as its best use possible. And without the dock doors, the perspective tenant and C2 there would not be able to run their business and inventory anything in their store. And as Matt mentioned earlier, I believe on all these items, we are within what's required and what our layout shows. And I hope that you all would take that into consideration that we try to go above and beyond the call of duty to buffer those areas with, in addition to the 15-foot landscape buffer area shown, the extensive green area around the dumpster enclosure as well as that dock area, which we plan on layering with multiple levels of evergreens and deciduous-type trees that will create a total block from view and will help soften and deaden the noise from any of that for the neighbors, a lot more so than I think a fence would or even a little bit more distance. If we didn't put as much landscaping there, I think you'd be able to hear it a lot more if it was less landscaped and a few feet farther away. The parking along the residential side as well is blocked and buffered, And those spaces are specifically listed for employee parking only, which will limit the use and any traffic flow in that area. In a hope to try to fix what we could based on what the lot would allow us, I've got a little drawing here, Matt, if he can show. So at the bottom of the plan, where the two red dots are located, we have flipped the 16 parking spaces and flipped those to where they would be sitting up against the proposed tenant space in the back. Now, we are losing three parking spaces, but it does allow for that drive lane to be next to the landscape buffer area and pushing the parking as far away from the residential zoned area as possible. We hate to lose the three spaces because, honestly, that tenant had complained about not having enough as it was originally shown with all those spaces. And to lose the three is bad enough, but to lose the ten spaces over on the side that was requested really deals us a hard blow and may jeopardize the likelihood of that tenant moving forward with things as they had indicated they would like to. Again, we're trying to do everything we can in order to minimize any impact that they would have on the residential side. but please understand we're just trying to develop the property as best we can within how it's zoned and how we can utilize it and build upon it so we can actually make a profit on it too and be successful in our endeavors to make this a beautiful project that everybody will be happy with and look fondly upon for not just short term but also long term. But again, more than happy to talk and speak in more specifics if you all have any questions. We'd like to talk in as much detail as you all would like to. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I would like to add one comment. On the back of C2 building where the loading dock is, we have attempted to make some improvements on that. We've got the truck skewed at a different angle, and it is bringing it further away from the property line. So, you know, there are some adjustments we can make to help that out. All right. Thank you. If it's all right, let me ask for comments, other comments from the audience. We'll get to questions in a minute and maybe in the interest of time speed things up a little bit. Others that want to speak on this plan? Yes, ma'am. Hi. We're back. I'm T. Bergman. I'm representing the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization. and I want to start by saying that we appreciate very much the effort that CRM has put into this plan. What was proposed before was totally unacceptable, and so we are now at a point where we look at something that we think is very doable with a neighborhood. The concerns that were brought up today, the 18 through 21, and this is the first time I've seen them, and I'm certainly not familiar with all the regulations as far as 40 feet from a residential property and that sort of thing. I did know there had to be 15 feet, but 40. So I didn't bring that up when we had our meeting, or we would have probably talked about it a little more. I look at what is being proposed, whether you put the parking spaces next to the residential or you put the parking spaces close to the building. I don't know if there is a good solution to that. I really don't. I did ask that when we met on Monday that that driveway, I think it's roughly, I don't know how much it is, but I thought possibly it could be reduced in width so that we could gain a little more space. And Mr. Johnson spoke to that, and he may respond again to that idea. I honestly do not have a feeling. I do know that that property owner, and I have tried to reach that property owner to talk to her. She lives in Louisville, so it's not a real convenient situation, but I would like to know what she thinks. I don't know. I honestly don't know. But I do know that what is being proposed overall, they have directed the traffic away from Mitchell Avenue. They have been very supportive in with the calming devices that's going to go on on Mitchell. And in addition to $20,000, they are also agreeing to pay for the design of the bulb out, which we don't know how much it's going to cost, but will cost some money. So that's going to make that $20,000 go even further when we're talking about traffic calming on the street. Let me see if there's anything else. Oh, the thing that I really appreciate is the attention to vegetation. If you'll notice the screening that is being proposed on Mitchell Avenue there, as the curve goes, that is a big plus. What you've done is take the look. You've taken the eye to the green stuff as opposed to all the hardscape. And that's a very positive as far as I'm concerned and as far as the neighborhood is concerned. They've tried really, really hard to direct the traffic. used to be some flow down into lots more into D. It's all pretty much directed onto Harrodsburg Road. That is a real plus. So I think the only contention here is the parking spaces on D. And I honestly don't have a solution for you or even a recommendation for you. I just know that the people in those houses will probably bring it to my attention and their attention when we talk about it. I think the issue is far more with the one down on the bottom. That house is very, very close to that property, maybe five, eight feet off that property line. The one in the back is a little further away. Any questions? Questions from Ms. Bergman? Thank you. Thank you. Others that would like to speak? Okay. Questions? Mr. Drake? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I just want to qualify. I think the staff said during presentations that the northwest corner along Harrodsburg Road, that border has an insurance building there, is that correct? An insurance company? It's commercial? It is commercial use in that location, yes, sir. What about the back part of that property? Is that residential? The property that is oriented towards Harrodsburg Road is a commercial use. Everything back and behind parallel to this property are residential uses. Is what? Residential. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? I don't know who to address this to. these last four conditions obviously came from the revision that was turned in yesterday at 4 o'clock. Yes, sir? If we could put something on the overhead that might help the condition in your consideration. All right. Thank you. Looks to me like those are impossible. That's residential. Thank you. In essence, what the applicant has offered is a compromise in location, their ability to move the truck. The parking could remain and be adjusted, as could the dumpster, not as far as staff recommended, but could be adjusted further into the property, and they could maintain those features in their approximate locations as they are now, along again to this particular boundary. Okay. But, African, can you read and understand and agree? Well, I see what they've done, and I think we could work with that. But I think we would need a little more room for the truck to maneuver, and we can work with the staff and show them, you know, through auto turn, how the truck needs a little more room to maneuver to back into that spot. But I think we could probably work with that. If I could interject here, in looking at the plan, I understand what they're trying to accomplish, but one of the concerns we had and the reason we tried to tuck in the dumpster enclosure into that back corner area is to get that area as well as the dock door area out of the flow of traffic because we went to great lengths to create an opening off Harrisburg Road to really funnel traffic in and back through the property. is a main entrance to really draw them into an off harrodsburg road and my fear is with that angle if you happen to have a truck coming or going at a time when traffic is flowing in and out it just makes things you know kind of tight in that area and with the dumpster enclosure area they've got shown in red my concern is not being able to have the space there for the three dumpsters that we're proposing in that area that would service both of those tenants in the C location as well as the D location. And with the regular trash as well as the recyclables that, you know, between both parties, we really need three dumpsters in that area to make sure there's not an overflow of trash. We want to make sure that property is, you know, kept clean and very pristine. and I feel confident that, you know, again, we've tried to adjust the best we could and I just like the open area where that traffic flow and the employee parking out of the way of the flow of traffic when they're backing out and they're exiting after, you know, getting off work. I feel like the farther away they are from that driveway lane, the safer it is for the cars and pedestrian traffic. So that's our theory behind where we laid it up against there and why we designated that specific area as employee parking only. So there's not a lot of traffic coming in and out with cars. And, you know, once they're parked, they're parked, and they'll be there for an extended period of time. And I can go into great detail and probably bore you all to tears, but we will put layers of landscaping in there and not just small varieties. We're planning on putting large varieties in that would be six feet or better going in the ground to layer in two and three layers along that landscape buffer area to block from headlights, from sound, and really create a nice buffer. Speaking to what Ms. Bergman had mentioned earlier, down beneath lot D, where we flip the spaces in hopes to try to accommodate as best we could with the best use of the property, I'm not sure which is worse. It's the lesser of two evils. If you've got a drive lane that's closer to a residence, that noise of cars or potentially a truck coming in and out, versus traffic, you know, that is pulled in and parked, again, trying to designate that back area as additional employee parking, where I don't know if that serves as more of a buffer from the traffic. And that would really be a personal preference, in my opinion, because you're going to have some people that would prefer to have parking closer to them to give them a buffer. and someone would rather have the drive lane closer. So, you know, I feel like we're trying to use the property in the best way possible for us to make it economically feasible for us and to ensure the best chances for us to have those spaces leased up. And I'm more than happy to compromise as best we can, and we've tried to do that with flipping the spaces. I would really like it if we could keep the plan as originally proposed and feel confident that when the landscape review process goes forward that they will be more than happy with what we're planning on putting there for buffer to create a great sound block and visual block for those areas that are in question. Okay, let me say this. You know, one, I can appreciate the work and effort that's been put into this and the plan continually gets better, I believe. and I think Ms. Bergman echoes that for the most part. And I can understand you met with them Tuesday night and you probably did make some changes and so forth. But what we're talking about here, having the staff to have less than 24 hours to look at it and digest it and so forth, it puts them in a bind and it puts us in a bind to try and to redo this on the fly in this setting at this time. I would personally like to see this thing continued to try and get these couple of items taken care of. I don't know if that's possible. I don't know, staff, if, you know, with Matt, or Mr. Johnson, are you all agreeable to what they're offering here as a solution? If we can get the dumpster corral large enough to accommodate three, we would be willing to look at it. I think it really needs to be something in between the two, to be totally honest with you, for it to work. And with all due respect, I would like to interject, and again, Matt may be able to clarify the dates, but the plan as shown with the parking and the layout for these big buildings has been there before 24 hours. The 24-hour document that was presented had a few changes internal to the site, but not from an overall view of the development as it's currently shown here. So I feel like that's kind of a... Let me ask staff this. Staff, you've got the wording of relocate, relocate, relocate. Is it possible to change it to resolve with you all, and if it can't be resolved, then it comes back? Yes, sir. That is possible. And then a resolve condition would not require the dimensions that are on the board. That is possible. Yes, sir. Okay. I think the record of the hearing would then demonstrate the measures that we've discussed. Can I add one thing? Can we also have the flexibility to lose parking based on what the resolve is without coming back to the Planning Commission? Because we are in surplus of parking. Not from a tenant standpoint. Mr. Chairman, that's a typical condition associated with traffic engineering sign-off. Sometimes not all the surplus parking lives on in the service. So that could be covered through the sign-off? Yes, sir. Okay, let me ask this. Ms. Bergman, with what you've heard, are you okay with this? I'd like clarification, please. If I understood what you said, you would take the three relocates and change the wording on that? To resolve. Just the two. I believe it would be all three. Okay. And I'd like to also ask that the neighborhood organization be involved in this discussion prior to coming here, because we do have some concerns in this, and those are things we originally had concerns with. So if we're involved in that discussion, fine. And if I can just make one comment. Again, we've been very open and upfront and, you know, extended a handout to all parties involved. Just generally, I mean, that's how we do business. And I'm more than happy to go over and meet just like we have in the past and go through the discussion and try to get that resolved. But I do also want to at least say that, you know, in our opinion, you know, we bought the property and it's zoned a certain way. We also would like you all to view this also from a reasonable perspective in that we're just trying to develop the property as it's shown. And, again, with all due respect to this neighborhood association or any other group, we want to work together. And we have throughout and we'll continue to work throughout. But it's ultimately up to you all and the property owners to make those decisions, and we're trying to stay within those guides. I just don't want to set a precedent here. It's a slippery slope that a homeowner's association can say, well, we don't like this, and so it needs to be ruled upon a certain way. We can understand. Mr. Penn, question? Yeah, I think we're in a situation here where it's not our job to play let's make a deal. And so let's either continue this or let's use the word resolve. But it's not for us to decide how many feet something's going to be or not going to be. That's something the staff needs to work out with the applicant. And I just don't think we're in a dangerous situation here where we get really a late presented plan and then the applicant doesn't like what the staff comes up with and we're sitting here playing let's make a deal and that's just not the way this is supposed to work. And so I would suggest we either change it to resolve and let them work it out, or we continue, let them break it out and bring it back to us. But we've gone way too far on what we're doing here today. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, I would echo part of what Frank said. I think we can put this in and fix it with the very short statements about resolve and perhaps even combine all those into one so that you resolve minimum dock locations, locations of the dumpsters, et cetera. I think that everybody involved here should be complimented. You guys have, I think, responded to the neighborhood's serious concerns with a really positive attitude, and I applaud you for doing so. Staff, for working with you. But I think we should move this on. Any other comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I've got a question real quick. Yes, sir. Do you want me just to revise that on the fly here, or do you guys want to draft something? We'll work on it. It just says resolve. We'll work on a quick revision. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Now we have revised conditions for 18, 19, and 20. That's good. Okay. Okay. Resolve the location of behind all three. are good it's probably easier to keep them separately does that sound okay to you guys yes thank you mr chairman i'd like to make a motion please yes sir um let's see if i can get this right i move for approval of dp 2014-16 with the addition in the notes of at the end of the first note the proposal of this amendment is to develop parcel c and d we have renumbering that i'm sure the staff can take care of better than i can and then the changes to 18 note 18 19 and 20 per what's currently on the screen suggested by staff and we're keeping 21 everybody's okay with 21 motion motion has been made and seconded for approval of dp 2014-16 Motion has been made and seconded for approval with the revised 21 conditions and change in 18, 19, and 20 for all practical purposes to resolve. It has been seconded by Mr. Wilson. If there's no questions, please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you all. Ms. Bergman, for your diligence as well. We're going to try and keep moving. Next would be on page 7. It's DP 2014-38 Providence Montessori School. You do have revised conditions. That's on a pink sheet before you. And there's 14 conditions. And it says up in there. I hope that I can figure that out. don't know where to look for it sure well we'll let them set up uh we do have a release and call of bonds memo mr chairman yes sir uh i'm going to move approval of the release and call of bonds motion has been made and seconded for the release of call of bonds memo dated may 8 2014. please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you now mr martin providence Montessori School. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this next item is located on page 7, DP 2014-38, Providence Montessori School, formerly known as the Florence Crittenden Home. You have been handed out some information relevant to this development plan on a pink sheet of revised conditions along with some supplemental material. This is, as stated in the title, the former site of Florence Crittenden Home, a long time, 100 years or longer social service facility that has served our community in this location. It fronts on 4th Street here. Back here, Pilgrim Court is a little extension that comes off of 5th Street. Here we have railroad right-of-way, which is going to be part of our trail system in the future. I believe negotiations are underway on obtaining that property. The proposal that you have before you is an adaptive reuse proposal in the I-1 zone, and they are proposing to utilize this as a Montessori Middle School. They'll use the existing drive as it comes in here. Existing parking, parking areas are going to be a slight enlargement through the drive aisle. They're going to utilize the existing structures all as part of their campus and part of their scholastic activities. Now, as you are aware, an adaptive reuse has to meet certain criteria, and that is the supplemental material that you have. Staff always prepares a brief memo outlining what they are proposing to do to gain that status from your approval. And in this particular case, one of the most important aspects, of course, is they're reusing the existing building, an older building, and that is an absolute requirement. It is a little under 10,000 or approximately 10,000 square feet in your requirements, there is a size requirement they have to satisfy and or a historic qualification. In this case, they're meeting the historic requirements of your adaptive reuse. They are offering in this location an element of public art with bicycle parking. This is a modification. It was more interior to the property. They're bringing it up front to orient it to the trail, and staff is very pleased with that. We think that's a very positive revision in that it'll allow folks who are utilizing the trail to also access the public art. Staff felt like for it to be public art, obviously it had to be accessible to the public. Another important aspect of what they are proposing to do are rain gardens and permaculture and those types of site activities. And it's important to note that they want to incorporate this into their curriculum, that the students, and they will be happy to expand on this, get involved in the design and development of these features. And these are important features and an important aspect of what they're asking of this body to be an adaptive reuse. There are a couple other criteria that apply, including the recommendation of the comp plan and being in an area of infill and redevelopment. And those are highlighted on the memo that we handed out. Again, minimal amount of physical changes to the property. The important thing is the timing of these features. And staff has passed out. You should have a note at your seat. And it's just a single piece of paper with a little note on it, number seven it says. It's not colored. It's not pink. It's not green. Hoping it's easier to find because of that. But that we supplied to you as an example because we've done this once before, and that was on the South Broadway zone change for the Montessori School next to Tollyhoe. And in that situation, they requested a variance on the landscaping. And one of the conditions, and that note addresses it, of the variance was that they incorporate the landscape care and maintenance into their curriculum. We have a note on this handout that in essence says the same thing. It's a condition, which is to denote the timing of the installation of proposed adaptive reuse features versus occupancy. And we wanted just to give you that. That's an example of what we would like to work out with the applicant in terms of when they intend to do that and how. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Oh, one other thing. Pardon me. We passed out. You should have a copy of the support letter. So I just wanted to let you know. Are you suggesting that this one addition be added to the conditions? That's an example. We don't expect that exact wording. And I believe those of you at the subdivision committee heard what we think was a very comprehensive presentation. of their intent that this to be a part of their curriculum. Staff would like to see a note to that effect on the development. Something similar. Yes, sir. Something similar. Okay. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, before the applicant speaks, we would just remind you we've received one letter from the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. That's been distributed. Yes. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. I am Steve Rochelle, representing Providence Montessori School. I'm pleased to tell you that all three of my children attended the school, and my grandchildren are currently attending. In many respects, we're coming home in this application. In 1965, this school was started at the time it was known as St. Peter Claver Montessori, maybe 300 or 400 feet from this site on the corner of Jefferson and Sixth. So we are delighted to be back in this neighborhood. Since 1965, this school has grown. It has always produced wonderful graduates and provided wonderful education. Currently, this application is to house our new middle school. So those coming out of the elementary stages will have a middle school to attend for their Montessori education. As a preliminary matter, I would like to introduce and I suppose give to you, Mr. Chairman, our affidavit that our sign has been posted and that it's currently posted. I checked that this morning. You can give it to Barb until you left there. Thank you. I'll try to be brief because you all don't want to listen to me. You want to listen to my client, and they've been instructed to be brief as well. So this corridor has become an educational corridor. If you think all the way from Broadway, you've got Transie. Now you have the additional properties that Transie's has acquired. And now on 4th Street, you're going to have a middle school. And then you're going to have Transie's athletic fields. And next to that, you're going to have the new BCTS. So this has become and will always continue to be an educational corridor. We are delighted in that we are able to use both of these buildings. One is a very historic building. It's been alluded to in your letter that we would like to give to Barbara from the Blue Grass Trust of Historic Preservation. That letter is signed by Jason Sloan, who is here, if you have any questions of him. An adaptive reuse is a rarity, and we believe that we meet all the criteria. The staff agrees with us. Tom mentioned in his presentation his review and recommendation of approval that we meet the adaptive reuse criteria in all respects. He's mentioned the various features. There's no need to be going over those again with you. They are part of the record. And I would also give Barbara, I'm sure she already has, a copy of Tom's memorandum with his recommendation, along with our application, which incorporates all the things that I'm speaking of at the moment. We are in compliance with the Small Area Plan. We are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. And we are doing what this commission and our government wants us to do, and we would urge your approval. Now, today you have to make a finding of fact that we have met all these criteria, and that's very important. And at the conclusion of our presentation, I'll present you with those findings of fact. It is very interesting that many of the things that we would like to do, we cannot do, because the students will be participating in the process. The permaculture area, permaagriculture area, will be designed by the students. It is part of our curriculum, and we'll be making a brief presentation on that in just a moment. We will not be able to have our art up because this will be student art. It will be rotated in and out of the public art area. And we would ask that you give us some leeway in that regard that we would be able to occupy the school, and the building inspector would not say, no, you haven't completed this infrastructure. With that, I am going to introduce to you Larry Pemble, who's going to give you a handout and explain to you about our permaagricultural program, which is quite interesting. It's been quite educational to me. Larry? Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Larry Pemble. I am a Providence parent of some many years, board member for many years. And although I am not an expert on permaculture agriculture, I would like to give you a little bit of summary. The staff asked us, why can't we have these things in place on day one, as you see on our site map? And the answer that Steve just gave you was, in essence, the summary of that situation, and that is that the kids build these things. Maria Montessori, I'm also not a Montessorian, but I've been around Montessori school for several years now. Maria Montessori said that anything that a child can do, you should let them do, not do for them. Fundamental principle. The other thing about adolescent education, Maria Montessori believed that integral to an adolescent's educational experience is to take principles learned in the classroom, chemistry, biology, physics, hydrology, et cetera, and take them out and dig in the dirt. Erdkinder is Maria Montessori's term for the adolescent period of the educational process, and it means earth children, right? And so every Montessori middle school you'll visit has a land-based curriculum. The current Montessori middle school in Lexington has such a program. They have a permaculture program, rain gardens, et cetera. Their kids built those programs. We have, in addition to the team that will help our students design these programs, we also have on staff a Ph.D. soil expert. Our staff is built to help the kids execute these agricultural-type projects. They also participate. They take the experience a little further, and they participate in microeconomic-type programs as well. They grow vegetables and sell them to the local restaurants, et cetera, et cetera. So it's an integrated curriculum. So this is a response to the staff's request for why can't you have these things in place on day one. We would propose to do something like mark these out to make it clear where these things will be. We've outlined in the materials you have there the type of program that evolves over a period of years with the students that move through the school, where they, at each stage of the development, they're involved in the design and the execution of these integrated academic programs. Yeah, so I'm not an expert. We do have some people much more conversant in Montessori education philosophy in the room. I'll be happy to. I don't know how much you'd be interested in hearing about this, but I and so I'll just leave it at that and ask if you have any questions. Any questions? Mr. Wilson. First of all, I'm also a Providence Montessori parent. I want you to know that your graduate has done extraordinarily well. He's making lots of money. Very successful and he's paying for his own insurance. So what more can I ask? So I say I thank you all for what you all have done for my son and for what we went through as parents through the experience that we had was very enlightening. And I agree with all the things. But one question I had is, does this in any way impact your Texaco Road? In other words, you're going to keep your, is that where your preschoolers are there? And then this is just middle school? Yeah. So this is a dedicated middle school campus, only currently 7th and 8th. And we're talking about potentially bringing 9th grade into the other. In answer to your question, no change to Texaco Road. Thank you. I'm going to say, let's go out on a limb here. Once again, I don't think the facility or the use is an issue here. There may be just a couple of conditions that we have to work on. Others that want to speak, need to speak, feel compelled to speak. Anyone else in the audience? Okay. questions from the commission? Let me ask this. Are you all agreeable to what's up on the screen? Sure. Sure. Okay. One quick question for me. Public art, I can understand. I don't know if someone else needs to ask or not, But obviously it's coming from the students. When do you think they'll be up? Much, you know, same sort of deal. Are the students going to go out there and paint on the wall, or is it? Well, we have, let me, so we have perhaps an example on our Texaco Road campus of the kind of thing that we're talking about. There were many horses produced in this town that were on public display around town. We have a similar version of that that our kids made. We call him Green Bean, and he sits on a pedestal on our Texaco Road campus. So something like this is probably what we would have these, and we're working with our art department to produce such a piece of artwork, hopefully soon after occupancy, next fall. We would like that to occur. Okay. Yes, ma'am? I'll speak for just a minute. Well, I'm Carol Heiler. I'm the head of school at Providence. And we do have a designated art teacher committed to work with the middle school students. But as Larry has said, it's really important to get the input from the students. So we could go out and we could put art out there right now if we wanted to. But we would much rather have the involvement of the students in thinking about what's appropriate to the facility, maybe the history of the facility, and getting them engaged. Maybe they want to do some pottery. Maybe they want to do some sculpture and place out there on the property that's meaningful to them and meaningful to their experience. And that's what's going to take us a little time. As you know, we've got a couple of weeks of school left, and these children are going to be gone on summer vacation. But when Mrs. Martin gets back with the children in August, I can assure you that they will be very excited to brainstorm and come up with lots of creative ideas for how they can utilize that art. All right. Thank you. Staff, let me ask this. They were concerned with building inspection if public art wasn't hung up there immediately. Any concerns on your part? I think that condition number 14 just really explains it all, where as long as we denote kind of the time expectation of the installation of those features, the staff is fine with that. Okay, then. Thank you. Mr. Penn? My only question is that if the location changes on these rain gardens and art and that type of stuff, does that have to come back to us for an amendment, or is that amended development? Mr. Martin and I are conferring that we've never seen that type of thing happen before on an adaptive reuse project. It may be one of those where if the staff sees a slight change, we'd probably be comfortable with that. If we see things flip-flopping, we might not be comfortable with that type of change. Well, it's kind of a process question for me. And I guess, Roy, the reason I even bring it up is that, you know, these three locations border the neighbor property. And there's nothing wrong with doing things for academic reasons as long as they don't get to be public eyesores. And so I don't want us to say that this has to come in within three years. This is a Providence map. And I guess if it conforms to this, we wouldn't have a problem with it. I'll just want to get a mini development plan two years from now. The rain garden has approximate location or approximate size on it. We've drawn some areas and we've given dimensions. I think if we add the word approximate to each, it tells you that there's going to be one. It's roughly the size, shape, location. Small tweaking due to whatever curriculum changes the students would have, I think would meet that. If I could add just one thing. So the wording here says we'll become part of the school's curriculum within the next three years. Actually, it will be part of the school's curriculum on day one, right? And we walked the property with the experts that you see noted in your materials the other day and mapped out the rain garden and the permaculture areas, as you see. So everyone's fine with these areas. and these will be the areas. There might be more in the future, but these will be there. And, yeah, but I think it's worth clarifying that this curriculum will start immediately, not later. It's just it won't be full-blown. A permaculture process, you see, is an iterative process over years of time. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Martin, you got to? Just very briefly, to answer Mr. Penn's question, Article 21 of the zoning ordinance allows staff on a minor amendment to approve alterations, changes in previously approved spaces. We can't reduce certain items like open space, et cetera. But if you approve these spaces and they have to reconfigure them and it's determined to be necessary to change a development plan, it's very possible to do it on a minor development plan with staff review. We don't see it as an issue. Well, my reason for bringing this up is the one constant thing about education is it changes. And so if this is an adaptive reuse project, which I applaud, I mean, we've had a lot of good things happen in this community with all types of that type of education. But if your curriculum wants to change, I was trying to avoid a situation where they had to come back down and go through the rigmarole again of changing if your curriculum changes. That's my only reason for asking that question. Ms. Plumlee? Yes. If we need changes for 14 and 15, I have a suggestion. 14 could read, installation of proposed adaptive reuse features, rain garden, and public art shall be curriculum directed. and 15 would read plantings and maintenance thereof shall become a part of the school's curriculum within the next three years just a suggestion what was on number 14 what was your change again excuse me installation of proposed adaptive reuse features rain garden and public art shall be curriculum directed. Yeah, I think that's fine. And that goes to one of my findings of facts that I would like to introduce when it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think we're ready. Do we need findings of fact for this adaptive reuse? If we do not, we certainly can waive them. Mr. Martin has prepared a memorandum for you that serves that same purpose, so it would be domain to entertain these. Okay. Yes, sir. Bring it on. Well, do you want them? I couldn't understand if... Yes, it would be appropriate to have those. Hmm. Just to be sure of that. Someone down there to them. Yeah. Maybe it's coming from both directions. Okay. I think we're ready. Any other questions? Yeah. Just on Ms. Palmley's last comment, you said the public art and rain garden will be curriculum directed? Yeah. I'm uncomfortable with mandating curriculum to do anything. I think this is a, I don't know, I don't know why that would be our purview. I mean, if you're just working on the timing of it, I would say that, but I don't think that we'd tell the school what to do. Well, they already told us that that's what they were going to do, though, that they were going to have the students plant trees and take care of them, et cetera. So that's where I got the wording from. Mr. Brewer? That was left over? Okay. Yeah, I think we're all on the same page for the most part. It's just a matter as to wording. And as long as we get something, I believe, that gives us a parameter as to knowing that it's going to be put in the ground at some point in time, I think we're okay. And, you know, we do have findings from staff and the applicant as far as the adaptive reuse. So I think we're ready to move. If it's the will of the commission, I'll close this part of the discussion and ask for a motion. Anyone? Yes. Yes. Well, first of all, I would, let me try this and then you all clean it up as best you can. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2014-30 Providence Montessori School with the conditions outlined by staff with the recommendations that have been submitted by Ms. Plumlee. Okay. it was yeah thank you did you say I didn't but he added so I will add that yeah based on the findings motion motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2014-38 Providence Montessori School with the 14 noted conditions changing 14 with 14 and add 15 with Ms. Plumlee's language. How's that? That's good. I think it was seconded. Yes, sir? I believe you also said and the findings of fact. And the findings of fact. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. There's no other questions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. or motion passes thank you folks good luck um we have one more on the agenda it's at the bottom of page 7 dp 2013-19 brookhaven subdivision there's uh hit me a straight it's not that bad And it continues on page 8. We got to be out of here for 3 minutes, right? We may have an extra 15 minutes, 10 or 15. Do we have an extra? Is it 440, 445 when they come in? Bill said 445, so. Hustle. All right. We'll try to keep this short and sweet. This is Brookhaven subdivision. we're at the corner of nicholasville road malibu we have the right aid up here in the front and everybody's heard about our rafferty store now moving we have a new layout for the property this plan's been in front of you a couple different times they had come in with a new layout to put a fitness center here with a restaurant up front now they've come back and we approved it in march and then again in september Now they're back again with another layout. They've removed the restaurant up front, and they have changed the fitness retail area here. We have a restaurant here, some retail shops, and we didn't know, since a lot of these new strip shops have extra restaurants, if there's possibility they might want to do something back here. That's one of the conditions. This plan was brought to the subdivision committee, and it was recommended for approval with the 21 conditions. Typical first seven are our sign-offs. Eight through 21 are cleanup and other questions. We have the Division of Water Quality's approval in those conditions. We asked for them to eliminate the proposed access to Malibu Drive. When they brought this plan in this time, we have access points here, here, and then one here in the rear for the rear portion of the building. They came in with a proposal to add another access point. We asked for them to remove that because it doesn't meet our distance for access points on a collector road. and we have on note number 14 on the plan here it says that it creates an easement but we don't create easements on development plans we have access agreements which we've had this before we just want to make sure that they correct that note with that the subdivision committee recommended approval and i think the staff can recommend approval oh the reason this is coming back i'm sorry the reason this is coming back to you all because since the committee meeting they've they've shifted this whole area down one like 10 feet so they removed seven parking spaces here and so with the reduction of the parking that has to come in front of you all they still have 120 plus parking spaces over after we delete the seven. We're having to show you that they're wanting to delete an additional seven parking spaces. Thank you. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, I'm Roger Ladenberger. I'll make this quick. We agree to the conditions. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I knew you'd like that. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak? Questions? I've got one. Yes, sir. Mr. Leitenberger, I'd like to vote for this, but where's Rafferty's going? I don't have an answer for that. I figured you'd. Any other questions? If not, I'll close this Barton and ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2013-19 with a 17 revised 21 conditions. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. DP 2013-19 with 21 conditions. please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you for you. Thank you. Brevity. Any commission items? Any staff items? Mr. Chairman, nothing other than to remind the commission we do have a work session scheduled for next week at this time. Thank you. Thank you. If there's nothing else, we've got a motion for adjournment. Second. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you. Aye. Meeting adjourned.