# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - June 12, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 12, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3384 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3384?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-06-12 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 11,548 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on June 12, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included 13 agenda items. The Commission took 13 motions and votes during the session and heard 4 public comments. Of the 13 agenda items considered, 9 were approved and 4 were postponed. The approved items included the Gardenside Cabana Club (Parkside Development) amendment, Tuscany Tract A, 300 West Vine LLC Property, Indian Hills Subdivision, Headley Niven & Vance Property (Lots 1, 2 & 3), The Fairways at Andover Unit 1-B, The Fairways at Andover Unit 1-C, Turfland Mall amendment, and Lextran Headquarters Complex. The items postponed were Tuscany Unit 10, Growth Properties amendment, Kirklevington North Tract B amendment, and Ashland Park Subdivision Unit 11 Lot 4. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Frank Penn, Joseph Smith, Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Chris King, Bill Sallee, Barbara Rackers, Tom Martin, David Jarman, Kelly Hunter, Cheryl Gallt, Denice Bullock, Hillard Newman, Jeff Neal, Captain Greg Lengal, Lieutenant Joshua Thiel, and Tracy Jones. **Absent:** David Drake and Patrick Brewer. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded opposition or abstentions. **Postponements** The following items were postponed to July 10, 2014: - PLAN 2014-11F: TUSCANY, UNIT 10 (motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee) [timestamp: 00:12:31] - DP 2014-13: GROWTH PROPERTIES (AMD) (motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee) [timestamp: 00:13:38] - PLAN 2014-33F: ASHLAND PARK SUBDIVISION, UNIT 11, LOT 4 (motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy) [timestamp: 00:15:18] DP 2014-26: KIRKLEVINGTON NORTH, TRACT B (AMD) was indefinitely postponed (motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy) [timestamp: 00:14:11] **Approvals** - Consent Agenda items as recommended (motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Bill Wilson) [timestamp: 00:18:35] - PLAN 2014-31F: THE FAIRWAYS AT ANDOVER, UNIT 1-B with condition 12 resolved and conditions 13–14 deleted (motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joseph Smith) [timestamp: 00:58:34] - PLAN 2014-32F: THE FAIRWAYS AT ANDOVER, UNIT 1-C with condition 13 resolved, conditions 14–15 deleted, and a new condition added regarding flood insurance (motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Frank Penn) [timestamp: 01:00:15] - PLAN 2013-37F: TURFLAND MALL (AMD) with waiver request for Article 6-6 of Land Subdivision Regulations (motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joseph Smith) [timestamp: 01:09:49] - Release and call of bonds (motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Bill Wilson) [timestamp: 01:10:20] - PFR 2014-2: LEXTRAN HEADQUARTERS COMPLEX as in compliance with Comprehensive Plan, with condition to maintain and supplement landscaping along rail line (motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joseph Smith) [timestamp: 01:31:12] **Administrative Actions** - Nominating committee for commission officers: Frank Penn, Will Berkley, Carolyn Plumlee (motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Bill Wilson) [timestamp: 01:34:10] - Cancellation of June 19, 2014, work session (motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Bill Wilson) [timestamp: 01:35:18] - Cancellation of June 26, 2014, zoning hearing (motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Bill Wilson) [timestamp: 01:36:23] ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the board during the public comment period. **Carla Blanton** [timestamp: 01:01:19] recused herself from voting on Turfland Mall and LexTran items due to a client relationship and business conflict. She also announced that she would not seek reappointment to the Planning Commission. **Ben Sorrell** from Sherman Carter Barnhart [timestamp: 01:22:53] addressed environmental safeguards related to fuel storage. He explained that fuel storage tanks are above ground and double-walled, and are equipped with an oil-water separator to prevent spills. **Rocky Burke** from LexTran [timestamp: 01:24:03] discussed funding and future plans for the old building. He confirmed that funding comes primarily from an FTA grant, with backup financing options available. He also noted that the old building will be sold competitively due to Federal Transit Administration guidelines. **Charlie Barnhart** [timestamp: 01:26:41] addressed sustainability efforts for the project. He explained that the project aims for LEED Silver certification, with a current score in the high 50s. He indicated the team is pursuing additional green initiatives despite budget constraints. ## Appointments The following individuals were appointed to the Nominating Committee for Commission Officers: * **Frank Penn** — appointed to the Nominating Committee for Commission Officers * **Will Berkley** — appointed to the Nominating Committee for Commission Officers * **Carolyn Plumlee** — appointed to the Nominating Committee for Commission Officers ## Contested Items **Floodplain and LOMR Process for Fairways at Andover** Commission members engaged in a heated discussion regarding the floodplain and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process for the Fairways at Andover development. The primary concerns centered on the timing of the LOMR, its potential impact on homeowners, and the necessity for clear notice regarding flood insurance requirements. The discussion included detailed examination of the role of a 54-inch stormwater pipe in the floodplain determination and whether a note on the plat was necessary to properly document these requirements. The contested nature of this item reflected disagreement over how to adequately protect homeowners and ensure compliance with flood insurance regulations while processing the development. **Private Sewer Line Maintenance Responsibility** Staff and the applicant disputed responsibility for maintaining a private clay sewer line associated with the project. The core disagreement involved whether the property owner or the county would bear responsibility for ongoing maintenance of this infrastructure. Staff required that a note be added to the plat to explicitly clarify that the property owner, rather than the county, holds responsibility for maintaining the private sewer line. This procedural dispute centered on establishing clear legal documentation to prevent future confusion about maintenance obligations and to protect the county from assuming unexpected infrastructure maintenance costs. ## TUSCANY, UNIT 10 The Planning Commission considered PLAN 2014-11F regarding Tuscany, Unit 10 [timestamp: 00:12:31]. **Background and Recommendation** The Subdivision Committee had previously recommended postponement of this item due to concerns about the need for a preliminary subdivision plan and infrastructure timing. **Action Taken** Following a request from the applicant and with no objections from the audience, the Planning Commission voted to postpone PLAN 2014-11F: TUSCANY, UNIT 10 to July 10, 2014. ## GROWTH PROPERTIES (AMD) The Planning Commission discussed DP 2014-13: GROWTH PROPERTIES (AMD) at approximately 13:38 in the meeting. **Presentation and Discussion** Matt Carter presented information regarding this agenda item. **Concerns Raised** The Subdivision Committee had identified concerns about the proposed development, specifically regarding the suitability of the proposed single-family use and historic flooding conditions at the site. **Outcome** The Planning Commission postponed DP 2014-13: GROWTH PROPERTIES (AMD) to July 10, 2014. The postponement was made following a request from the applicant. No audience objections were raised during the discussion. ## KIRKLEVINGTON NORTH, TRACT B (AMD) The Planning Commission considered DP 2014-26: KIRKLEVINGTON NORTH, TRACT B (AMD) [timestamp: 00:14:11]. **Outcome** The Planning Commission granted an indefinite postponement of the application following a request from the applicant. There were no objections from the audience. **Background** The Subdivision Committee had recommended postponement of this item due to missing zoning compliance information required for the application. **Key Participants** Matt Carter was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## ASHLAND PARK SUBDIVISION, UNIT 11, LOT 4 **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2014-33F **Action Taken:** The Planning Commission postponed consideration of this item to July 10, 2014. **Background** The Commission reviewed a proposal for Ashland Park Subdivision, Unit 11, Lot 4. The Subdivision Committee had recommended postponement of this matter, citing that the lot is not currently served by sanitary sewer. **Discussion** Staff presented the item to the Commission [timestamp: 00:15:18]. The applicant requested postponement of the proposal. **Outcome** The Planning Commission voted to postpone PLAN 2014-33F to July 10, 2014. There were no objections from the audience regarding the postponement. ## GARDENSIDE CABANA CLUB (PARKSIDE DEVELOPMENT) (AMD) **Item Identifier:** 2014-34F **Type:** Consent Agenda Item The Planning Commission conditionally approved PLAN 2014-34F for the Gardenside Cabana Club (Parkside Development) amendment as part of the consent agenda. [timestamp: 00:18:35] **Approval and Conditions** The project received conditional approval with requirements related to plan corrections, zoning compliance, and environmental approvals. The conditions established standards that the project must meet to proceed. **Key Participants** Bill Sallee was identified as a key speaker regarding this agenda item. **Outcome** The amendment was approved by the Planning Commission. ## TUSCANY, TRACT A **Identifier:** 2013-38F The Planning Commission considered the conditional reapproval of PLAN 2013-38F: TUSCANY, TRACT A as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:18:35]. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the reapproval of TUSCANY, TRACT A with conditions. **Conditions** The approval included conditions related to: - Engineering compliance - Traffic requirements - Zoning compliance **Key Participant** Bill Sallee was identified as a key speaker on this agenda item. ## 300 WEST VINE, LLC PROPERTY The Planning Commission approved a one-year extension for PLAN 2013-53F regarding the 300 West Vine, LLC property. The item was considered as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:18:35]. **Outcome** The extension was approved with original conditions maintained. **Key Participant** Bill Sallee was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## INDIAN HILLS SUBDIVISION The Planning Commission approved DP 2014-45: INDIAN HILLS SUBDIVISION as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:18:35]. **Approval and Conditions** The Planning Commission conditionally approved the Indian Hills Subdivision project. The approval included conditions addressing three key areas: stormwater management, tree protection, and access requirements. **Key Speaker** Bill Sallee presented information related to this agenda item. **Outcome** The project was approved with the specified conditions in place. ## HEADLEY, NIVEN & VANCE PROPERTY, LOTS 1, 2 & 3 The Planning Commission considered the reapproval of Development Project (DP) 2013-29 for the Headley, Niven & Vance Property, Lots 1, 2 & 3 as part of the consent agenda [timestamp: 00:18:35]. Bill Sallee presented this item to the Commission. The project received conditional approval with the original conditions maintained from the previous review. An additional requirement was imposed: Division of Water Quality approval must be obtained as a condition of the project. The Commission voted to approve the reapproval of DP 2013-29 with these conditions. ## THE FAIRWAYS AT ANDOVER, UNIT 1-B The Planning Commission discussed and approved PLAN 2014-31F for The Fairways at Andover, Unit 1-B [timestamp: 00:58:34]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Tom Hatfield, Dave Jarman, and Rory Kahly. **Discussion Topics** The Commission's review focused on three main areas: - **Floodplain considerations** – The Commission examined floodplain-related requirements and impacts for the project. - **LOMR process** – Discussion included the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process and its status. - **Stormwater improvements** – The Commission reviewed proposed stormwater management improvements for the development. **Applicant Confirmation** The applicant confirmed that a 54-inch pipe is in place and that the LOMR process is underway. **Conditions** The Commission modified the project conditions as follows: - Condition 12 was resolved - Conditions 13 and 14 were deleted **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved PLAN 2014-31F: The Fairways at Andover, Unit 1-B with the modified conditions. ## THE FAIRWAYS AT ANDOVER, UNIT 1-C The Planning Commission discussed and approved PLAN 2014-32F for The Fairways at Andover, Unit 1-C [timestamp: 01:00:15]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Tom Hatfield, Dave Jarman, and Rory Kahly. **Action Taken** The Planning Commission approved the plan with the following modifications: * Condition 13 was resolved * Conditions 14 and 15 were deleted * A new condition was added requiring a note on the plat regarding potential flood insurance needs until LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) approval **Topics Discussed** The Commission's discussion addressed three primary areas: * Floodplain considerations * Stormwater management * Future development implications **Outcome** The plan was approved with conditions. ## TURFLAND MALL (AMD) **Identifier:** PLAN 2013-37F The Planning Commission reapproved PLAN 2013-37F: TURFLAND MALL (AMD) at approximately [timestamp: 01:09:49]. **Key Speakers:** - Tom Martin - Mark McIntosh **Action:** The Commission approved a waiver request for Article 6-6 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. This waiver allows the applicant to record the lot without dedicating the private sewer line. Under this approval, the private sewer line remains the responsibility of the property owner rather than becoming a public dedication. **Outcome:** The agenda item was approved. ## LEXTRAN HEADQUARTERS COMPLEX [timestamp: 01:31:12] The Planning Commission reviewed PFR 2014-2 concerning the LEXTRAN Headquarters Complex. The discussion involved Barbara Rackers, Ben Sorrell, Rocky Burke, and Charlie Barnhart. The Planning Commission found the project in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Destination 2040. A key recommendation emerged from the review: the Commission recommended maintaining and enhancing landscaping along the rail line to screen the site from adjacent residential properties. The project was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of PLAN 2014-11F: TUSCANY, UNIT 10 to July 10, 2014 - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of DP 2014-13: GROWTH PROPERTIES (AMD) to July 10, 2014 - **Motion** — postponed: Indefinite postponement of DP 2014-26: KIRKLEVINGTON NORTH, TRACT B (AMD) - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of PLAN 2014-33F: ASHLAND PARK SUBDIVISION, UNIT 11, LOT 4 to July 10, 2014 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Consent Agenda items as recommended - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PLAN 2014-31F: THE FAIRWAYS AT ANDOVER, UNIT 1-B with conditions 12 resolved and 13–14 deleted - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PLAN 2014-32F: THE FAIRWAYS AT ANDOVER, UNIT 1-C with conditions 13 resolved and 14–15 deleted, and new condition added on flood insurance - **Motion** — passed: Reapproval of PLAN 2013-37F: TURFLAND MALL (AMD) with waiver request for Article 6-6 of Land Subdivision Regulations - **Motion** — passed: Approval of release and call of bonds - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PFR 2014-2: LEXTRAN HEADQUARTERS COMPLEX as in compliance with Comprehensive Plan - **Motion** — passed: Approval of nominating committee for commission officers: Frank Penn, Will Berkley, Carolyn Plumlee - **Motion** — passed: Cancellation of June 19, 2014, work session - **Motion** — passed: Cancellation of June 26, 2014, zoning hearing --- ## Full transcript Steal your crown So it started out For God knows where I guess I'll know When I get there I'm learning to fly Around the clouds What goes up Must come down I'm learning to fly But I ain't got wings Coming down Is the hardest thing I'm letting me fly Around the clouds What goes up Must come down I'm letting me fly I'm willing to cry I'm willing to cry I'm willing to cry I'm willing to cry I'm willing to cry I'm willing to cry I'm willing to cry The End Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. meeting we'll call this meeting to order uh we'll tell the commission members i think our screen our granicus may be inoperable so we may be voting either by show of hands or by voice depending on the situation um it has worked before thanks for the confirmation um we have no minutes for approval today I'll move to postponements or withdrawals at this time does anyone have any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda mr. Cayley has your Jeep I got a ride with someone else okay Rory Cayley with EA partners the first item on your agenda under final subdivision plans plan 2014 11f tuscany unit 10 request a one month postponement to the july 10th hearing thank you mr kaylee uh anyone in the audience wish to speak this request for postponement commission members if not i'll entertain a motion mr chairman yes sir move postponement of plan 2014 11f tuscany for one month motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of plan 2014-11 elf until July 10, 2014. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Any other requests? Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. I'd like to postpone two items today. On page four in the agenda, under Development Plans, item a dp 2014-13 growth properties request a one month postponement to your july 10 hearing anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request commission members if not i'll entertain a motion mr chairman i move for a one month postponement of july the 10th for dp 2014-13 motion's been made and seconded for postponement until july 14th i'm sorry july 10th 2014 of dp 2014-13 uh all those in favor please say aye any opposed motion passes thank you on page five of the agenda item b dp 2014-26 kirk levington north track to be uh request 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 yes thank you motion's been made and seconded for postponement of dp 2014-26 and definitely all those in favor please say aye any opposed motion passes thank you any other requests for postponements or withdrawals mr chairman staff would direct the commission's attention to an item on page two of your agenda bottom of the page item d plan 2014-33f ashland park subdivision unit 11 lot 4 we have received a written communication from the applicant requesting a one month postponement thank you anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement commission members if not i'll entertain a motion mr chair move postponement till july 10th plan 2014-33f ashland park second thank you motion's been made and seconded for postponement of plan 2014-33 elf until july 10 2014. i think we do have our granicus working please vote on the screen that motion passes thank you any other requests for postponements withdrawals if not i'll ask mr sally to walk us through the consent agenda today thank you mr chairman members of the commission good afternoon there are five items appearing on your consent agenda this afternoon. The very first item is a final subdivision plan recommended for conditional approval by the members of your subdivision committee. This item is on page three of your meeting agenda. Item E, plan 2014-34. This is an amended final record plat for the Gardenside Cabana Club, also known as Parkside Development. This involves property at 1060 Cross Keys Road. There is one final subdivision plan recommended for reapproval by your staff that is also on the consent agenda. This is on page 4, item G of your meeting agenda, plan 2013-38F, Tuscany Tract A. This is located at 1978 Winchester Road. There is one final subdivision plan recommended for approval of a one-year extension by your staff. This is on page 4, item H of your meeting agenda. It's the very next item. Plan 2013-53F, 300 West Vine, LLC property. This property has an address of 307-315, 317-331, and 343 South Broadway. There is one development plan that's recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee on the consent agenda. It is on page 5 of your meeting agenda, item C, DP 2014-45, Indian Hill Subdivision, also known as the Lexington Vane Center PLLC. This involves property with an address of 3116 Harrodsburg Road. The final item on your consent agenda appears on page 6, item D, of your meeting agenda. This is a development plan recommended for reapproval by your staff. This is DP 2013-29, Headley-Niven-Advanced property, lots 1, 2, and 3. This property has addresses of 1500 Russell Cave Road and 281 and 285 New Circle Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask that one of these five items be removed to allow for further discussion, the commission can consider approving these as recommended at this time on your consent agenda. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience wish to hear and have one of these items removed from the consent agenda? Any commission member? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Our first item for consideration would be on page two. that's plan 2014-31L and Mr. Martin will we hear both of these together since the next one is associated as well okay plan 2014-31L and then item C plan 2014-32L that's on your agenda Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are looking at two final record plats. Plan 2014-31F. The fairways at Andover, Unit 1B is the one closest to you. for property located at 3435 McFarland Lane and Plan 2014-32F, the one closest to me. Again, the fairway is at Andover, Unit 1C with the same address. This property is located generally in that triangle between Man of War and Todd's Road and I-75. It is the first time these lots are going to plat. Looking at both of these here together, I'll start with Unit 1B. The subdivision committee has recommended approval of this plat, subject to the usual sign-off conditions of engineering, traffic engineering, building inspection, addressing, urban forester, bike and ped planner, and the addition of utility and street light easements we ask that they correct the fema map reference and update it here to the current e-series maps the 2014 series maps the documentation of water qualities approval of cap program requirements also condition 10 they denote the width of sanitary sewer easement across lots one through eight and to note the width of storm and sanitary sewer easements across lots 58 65 we want to discuss the status of the required lomer letter of mapper vision it is not yet officially filed it is called out on both of these plats here and it's the same floodplain running down through the center of the property we'd like to discuss the proposed 54 inch stormwater pipe to contain the floodway floodplain and floodway which is part of the loamer it's basically the the heart of the loamer that would run through the property in this general direction and then discuss the timing of public street dedication with the loamer and stormwater improvements and it's obviously the construction of and dedication to public street along with the required LOMER improvements. For Unit 1C, the conditions are very similar. We have the usual sign-off conditions, and I won't go through those, on up through Condition 7. Again, we ask they correct the FEMA map reference, call out the 2014 maps, documentation of water qualities approval of cap program requirements there are a couple of easements that we ask that they denote the width in here also that's condition 10 and 11 condition 12 provided at plan 2014 31f unit 1b is recorded prior to this plat again we'd like to discuss the status of the required loamer and the proposed 54-inch stormwater pipe to contain the floodplain floodway and then discuss the necessary stormwater improvements needed in the future development area off-site, which is actually at the end of this cul-de-sac, Sawgrass Cove cul-de-sac here. I'll direct your attention to this overall plan that we put together showing this entire area and the lotting of both plats unit 1b plat is highlighted in yellow these lots are highlighted in yellow and unit 1c lots are highlighted in orange as you can see in unit 1c all of those lots are affected in some way or another run through the current floodplain this is the the current floodplain pre LOMA let's say pre LOMA these plats the unit 1b was recommended for approval and due to questions from water quality about the particularly condition 15 the necessary stormwater improvements in the future development area here the the this plat was recommended for postponement by your subdivision committee and staff this future area here will eventually be the terminus of this 54 inch pipe coming down through what we see now as the current floodway floodplain and will eventually discharge into this area here this lake the areas for discussion involve not just the floodplain but the loamer and the details of the loamer we have concerns regarding the elevations of the lot and people's prospective buyers here being aware and having the information available to them elevation certificates for these lots as they consider purchase and go to purchase these lots we are in favor of a note that appears the intent of a note that appears on the preliminary subdivision plan that calls for no building permits until the loamer is officially filed again in order that people who consider people who are are purchasing these lots affected by the floodplain have a full understanding of the loamer and the consequences of the construction the 54 inch pipe and have available to them elevation certificates to to present to their prospective lenders okay so at this time if there are any questions or comments on either of these plats we'll be glad to address them. Questions? One question real quick, Dave. You said you mentioned the LOMER until the LOMER is filed. The LOMER hasn't been filed yet? It's our understanding it hasn't been officially filed. It is called out on the plat here. and along with the case number it is our understanding that it has not been officially filed at this time when this, I might add when it is filed the configuration of the flood plain will change dramatically theoretically should change dramatically to that of a 54 inch diameter pipe therefore what you see here now given the LOMER filing and execution of the project, once that takes place, that floodplain will change dramatically, thus allowing the construction. Construction or building? Building, yes. Ms. Plumlee? You mentioned elevation certificates. Yes, ma'am. Should that be a condition somewhere listed? It's possible. It's possible. staff feels strongly that due to the amount of interest and due frankly to the amount of calls that we get from individuals from homebuyers regarding flood insurance many of them are caught off guard by the necessity for flood insurance often at closing it is a substantial expense to some of these people so we feel like that it would be an appropriate level of information for them to have in order to make a wise decision and to have all the information at their disposal hopefully before that time mr penn yeah i might ought to wait for the applicant on this but i'll give you a shot at first when they put that in a 54 inch pipe and it crosses those lots can those people have a basement in their house i would defer the construction question mr penn okay however i won't forget it i'll ask that i'm sure however there is a 15 foot storm drainage easement that runs from this end of the property across here and down across down below and into the future development area this area down here in in the green retreat area that would accommodate the the 54 inch pipe the construction of that so there is an easement that would be available for that. It cuts across these lots here just to the southern edge of Sawgrass Cove. Any other questions right now? Mr. Wilson? Help me out a little bit. You said that when the construction starts, the floodplain could shift? The configuration after the construction is executed, once the loamer is filed and the construction is complete. Okay. And the configuration of the floodplain would theoretically change from what we see here now. So as a homeowner, I would be, when would I find this out? Hopefully you would find it out as early as possible with the, again, referring back to the note on a preliminary subdivision plan, that no building permits would be issued for the lots affected in the floodplain until such time as the loamer is officially filed. And therefore, the floodplain would be altered. Okay. Did that answer your question, Mr. Wilson? Other questions? Yes, ma'am. Just for clarification, when you're talking about that changing, It's just going to get more, basically, right? It will still follow the fall of the land and where it is there. It's just going to get smaller. Yes, ma'am. I wouldn't delve too deeply into the engineering aspects of it, but theoretically, the configuration would be that of the pipe. Yeah, okay. I think the applicant may be addressed that a little bit better. One other question before the applicant gets up. Now, you following up on Mr. Wilson's question as far as when would people who buy this know you're saying no building permit until certification. Can they buy a lot? And, you know, buying a lot is different than getting a building permit. Yes, sir. Shouldn't they know this when they buy the lot? That would be helpful, sir. Okay. Okay. Others? Applicant. Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman. Do you have help today? I do have help. Good. When you get real technical with me, I'll turn it over to Tom Hatfield. Generally, the question's being asked. Difference between a clomer and a lomer. A clomer is when we've turned in construction documents to federal government. They've reviewed them. they said yes you can do the work in the floodplain they've seen that we're going to address the situations and when we're done with all the construction through there we'll give them as built and that's when the floodplain lines as they have highlighted here in blue will be officially changed the reason you have two plants one of them shows you all the lots that do not have the current floodplain touching them and the other one has is the plat that has the flood plane touching those lots 1c with floodplain on them they would until the loamer all the construction was done and the federal government accepted the loamer they would need floodplain insurance and that's why they're separated into two separate paths the developer is able to market these to the home builders you know these you'll need a special extra insurance or permit with them and then the 1c you will not sorry 1c needs the extra permit how specific do we want to get yeah I just have this nagging question if I buy lot and there's a 54 inch pipe across that lot can i build on top of that pipe no pipe will be in an easement cannot build on easements okay it'll be in the rear yards okay so the basement will be dug not on the easement but outside of the easement correct okay that's simple as it gets what does the cross section look like of the pipe as you're going through there yeah I mean, how deep is it and that kind of thing? My name is Tom Hatfield. I'm with EA Partners. The 54-inch pipe, it probably varies in depth between, you know, maybe 8 feet deep. 54-inch pipe is 4 1⁄2 feet tall itself. The minimum cover we probably have on it is 2 or 3 feet. As it works its way upstream, it might have as much as 5 feet. So somewhere between, you know, 8 and 10 feet deep, I would guess. It's not extremely deep. And so you shouldn't, you know, it's not much different than any other storm sewer that you have in your neighborhoods. It's just a little larger. It shouldn't preclude you from having a basement adjacent to it. Like Roy said, it's going to be an easement. Mr. Hadfield, yeah, excuse me for a second. It may help to clarify if you could, one, show us where the 54-inch pipe is going to run, and then, two, what you anticipate as far as the floodplain or floodway going away. Okay. That's where I was headed. Thank you. The existing or the 54-inch pipe, there's a couple of branches to it. One comes over here and comes through here. Then we've got a couple of 36-inch pipes. There's a retention basin up here in Autumn Ridge. that discharges through a 30-inch pipe. So it starts as a 30, comes through here, turns into a 36, and this works its way down through the right-of-way and then through the rear yards and empties into what is currently a large sedimentation basin here that was put in place to protect the people downstream. So the path of the 54-inch pipe and storm sewer runs along the lot lines and the street right-of-way. the process with a letter of map revision is that you the first thing you do is you submit a clomer and it is an extensive study that analyzes the existing floodplain and then compares it to the designs a post developed floodplain and compares the water surface elevations and as long as we are in compliance and not raising the water surface upstream then FEMA gives you an approved conditional letter of map revision that basically says you've got permission to work in our flood plain if you do all your work the way that you say that you're going to in this application and you turn in as builds then we will allow you to convert that after the construction is done into an official letter of map revision so the the shading that's shown here in blue who officially doesn't change until you submit that letter of map revision. And that's why we've got these on a separate plat. Now, the 54-inch pipe is already in the ground. It is being constructed as we speak, and it is basically a completed system, except the tie-in up here at the retention basin. So the process of the construction is that as this 54-inch pipe is complete, as we complete the street construction. That's when we submit as-built into the Division of Engineering and submit the plat and start the recording process. So there will be no lots proposed in here until that 54-inch pipe is in the ground, which it is, and dedicated in easements. And there should be no concern. Right now the ground is already elevated above the floodplain elevation anyway. So once the loamer is submitted, the floodplain will end at the Autumn Ridge property line and end at the Autumn Ridge in both directions. You've got Autumn Ridge upstream and Autumn Ridge downstream, and the floodplain will essentially disappear on the fairways of Andover property. It will be contained inside the 54-inch pipe. Mr. Penn, you've got a question? Yeah, where that pipe goes through the lot line, between the two lots, how wide are those lots? I think they range from 50 to, they all range between 50 and 52 feet wide. So you're going to take half off one lot and half off the other for the easement? That's typically the way we do that, yes. Okay. And there's enough room to build a house after you do that? The developer has reviewed them, and he's satisfied with the lot widths. Thank you. Other questions? Just to clarify, so it will eliminate the necessity for flood insurance on all of those lots, is that correct? Once the loamer is complete, yes. Until that loamer becomes official, they will still have to have flood insurance. And the elevation certificate, we cannot do an elevation certificate until a structure exists. An elevation certificate basically tells FEMA that there's a structure here, tells you what the elevation is directly outside the structure, tells you what the elevation of the finished floor is. So you can't submit an elevation certificate until a house is constructed. But that's the process of this plat and the fact that it separates all the lots that are in the floodplain. You know, the developer's aware of this. He's going to make the builders aware of it. And that just alerts everybody that we'll be happy to put whatever kind of note that you want to on this plat to give the homeowner the best information that we can to make them aware that up until the LOMER is complete, they may have to have flood insurance. There's a special permit application that you go through through the Division of Engineering for this specific type of case where a floodplain has been altered through a CLOMER. The LOMER has not been completed yet, but yet they're still in a shaded area. And the Division of Engineering recognizing that the work has been done and everything's been engineered, that they are not in danger of flooding and they can issue a permit for that. We've done it in the guest property. We've done it in Mahan and several other developments around town in this exact situation. so i think we would ask a consideration of the note that is on the plan right now as far as no building permits until the loamer is filed um the loamer really can't be filed until we get finished you know well it can be we can do it in two phases we prefer to wait until the next section is complete and the sedimentation basin is removed and the cul-de-sac that you see here is completed, which would happen in the next couple of years. But if you wish, we can file the LOMER in two phases. And when phase two is complete, or if this 1B and 1C plats are complete, then we can file the LOMER and take care of that concern. Mr. Hadfield, a couple of questions. You mentioned pipes already in the ground, and you've got grounds already elevated, you know, from what it sounds like, to make it out of the floodplain at the finish grade, whatever. You're doing this before filing the LOMER? Is this a chicken-and-egg question? You know, which should come first? No, you have to. We filed the CLOMER, which is the conditional. It says you can work in their floodplain. You can't file the LOMER until the work is completed. So with the loamer, you have to submit as-builts and certifications that the work has been completed in accordance with these as-builts. So you can't get a loamer until the work is done. Okay. And your preference as far as getting the loamer completed is when? Once that work is done or once the cul-de-sac and new basin is done? We would prefer to allow us to get building permits until the cul-de-sac is complete, to not file the final loamer until the cul-de-sac is complete in what we call Phase 3. And that's when this sedimentation basin would be removed and this stormwater management area downstream is removed. But you're wanting to be able to get permits for these other lots before that time? That's correct. And, yeah, that's correct. Okay. All right. Other questions? Other information from the applicant? Did we interrupt before you got finished? Yes, Mr. Penn? What happens at the end of that 54-inch pipe from there to the pond or lake or whatever you want to call that blue-green thing there? What happens to that water down through there? Well, this is a stormwater management area. It's what we've termed this, and it is basically a large stilling basin. You've got a 54-inch and I believe a 42-inch pipe that come together in this area. We've got large stilling basins on the end of the head walls, which is basically you see a big head wall. It's got a piece of concrete across it that it kind of acts as a baffle, breaks up the velocity in the water as it comes out of the pipe. And then we've got a series of stone checks down through this reach here that also act as mechanisms for breaking up the velocity in the water. We've got native grasses planted around each of the ends of those stone checks to kind of keep them from eroding out. And we've specified this area be planted in native plantings. I don't know if you were ever out at the site before it was developed, but it had grass about that tall. And that's kind of the idea in this area that this would be an area that's remaining basically undisturbed once we get finished and planted in native grasses that will act as energy dissipators before that water gets down into the Autumn Ridge subdivision. But it still goes on top of the ground from there to the pond? Yes, sir. And that's going to be in people's backyards? Yes, sir. Coming down through here, it does. Yes. Which is the way it was doing before. Okay. Thanks. Mr. Hadfield, you mentioned the settlement basin that the 54-inch pipe is going to dump into now. Why wouldn't you want to go on and build that? And remove this sedimentation basin? This basin is a very large basin that has done a very nice job of protecting the Autumn Ridge Pond and the neighborhood downstream. To my knowledge, they've had no complaints from this developer. And as a requirement of our BMP plan that we submitted with our construction plans is that this would remain in place until Phase 1 and Phase 2 were complete. and then once those were revegetated and reclaimed, then we would be able to take out the sedimentation basin. But it's acting as a very good protector of the downstream properties. We want to leave that in as long as we can. Okay. Other questions? Yes, Ms. Fundman. I'm going back again to the elevation certificates and flood insurance. I don't see in any of these requirements that the need for that listed. And I don't think we have any kind of a note on those plats. We'll be happy to add a note or a warning that these lots shown on this plat may require flood insurance and or elevation certificates through the FEMA. I would just be more comfortable if it were listed black and white somewhere. So these people know that they're going to need flood insurance for a certain period. Sure. And we don't have a problem putting a note like that on there. Mr. Penn. So you back? I went to the side. Okay. Any other questions right now? Okay. Oh, I guess, yeah, one other question. If you're talking about, which would be on 31 Elf, the Sawgrass Cove, three lots there on Sawgrass Cove. what's fire waste management's thoughts on just a dead-end street without a turnaround or something? Or maybe I should be asking them. Has that been discussed? No? No, through technical that wasn't anything discussed. The area itself has been run in on a bunch of stub streets. the plats you see here will finally connect marco lane and autumn ridge they've both been stubs for years before that but those three lots were not discussed as far as access points or turnarounds okay all right um anybody else right now okay uh rebuttal additions from the staff? Thoughts? We have no rebuttals, Mr. Chairman. Maybe a couple of questions. I just wanted a thorough discussion for your benefit, and I think we've achieved that. Stay close. Mr. Penn. Yeah, I wanted to ask Dave. Is a staff recommendation for 14-32F still for postponement? Yes, sir. At this time, it is. It is this body's prerogative to discuss each of these three discussion items to the extent that you feel comfortable with the staff and the applicant at this point. But the recommendations remain the same. It's for approval on 31F and for postponement on 32F. Yes, sir. That is a recommendation. If you as a group feel that resolution that any of these discussion items could go to resolve, that is certainly your prerogative based on the discussions that you've had here today. Carla Blandon. Ms. Blandon. Yes, I had a question for staff. The applicant seems to feel that the LOMER would happen after building is done, but you're not comfortable with that. At what timing would you feel it would be appropriate? What more must be done for that to be okay? Well, the dictates of the LOMER are basically set in FEMA procedure and law. So if they're said in law, then it seems to me that the structure is in place for the applicant to have to be bound by doing what they've said they would do. So I guess I'm wondering why then you still recommend postponement. I just need a little more guidance and clarity on this point. Okay. Mr. Plain, the staff recommended postponement because until today's discussion, we really didn't know what type of timeline we were looking at between the approval of these plats and the completion of the construction, which then allows the clomer. The discussion today has said they can do the clomer in two parts, which is news to the staff as well. that can go a long way to moving the one plat along potentially because that clomer would be finished. These lots in the floodplain would be subject to the flood insurance for a far lesser time. I think the issue for the commission will come down to do you want to approve perhaps this other unit knowing that the note will be crafted after today's meeting or before you grant the approval for those lots that are in the floodplain, And do you want to see the note before you do that? And I think that then dictates whether you approve the plat or maybe continue consideration of it. Mr. Penn? I guess to respond to Bill's question, on number 15, on the 32F, is the staff comfortable with the needed for future development, the necessary stormwater improvements needed for the future development after discussion today? Yes, sir. Go ahead, Dave, if you want. With input from water quality, yes, sir. Specifically from technical subdivision meetings, yes, sir, at this point we feel comfortable with it. I've got one other question with that. What is the safety issue where those two big pipes come out? Do you think the grass is enough to secure that pipe? secure the pipe you've got a 54 inch pipe and you got a 36 or 8 coming out there whatever it is the actually going to be locked in with head walls it's the stone checks that are at the outlet of those right dissipation that would slow down the water i mean i don't see the pipes moving no the pipes aren't going to move i'm just worried about kids crawling in the pipe. The question I want to know is, is this within protocol? Is this what we need to do? Is there any safety issues? That's a pretty good-sized pipe. As far as I know, we don't put grates over pipes or box culverts in which would keep people out or keep people in, as it were. So if they get in, you want them to get out of the water? Yeah, coming out at the bottom seems to be a much better option. I guess with the other questions, We had requests that both plans were approved, and on the second one, the 32F, Unit 1C, part of Division of Engineering's acceptance of the floodplain information would be getting a note on there that they're comfortable with that describes the LOMER process. Getting these lots on 1C to record and then going through the process to get your building permits because the actual floodplain is not there. It's something we do all across town and the other developments we've worked on. And the note that you want to protect the homeowners when they get it, they know there's going to be floodplain insurance coming. We can put that in that same note. You may have to have floodplain insurance. It's always based on the banks and the lending companies. Per the LOMA process, we can certainly craft a note that makes engineering comfortable with that. But we would like to have both plats able to be recorded. I don't know if it's a question for staff or applicant. Does anyone have a recommendation of language for their offering to have the clomer in two parts, which I think would be beneficial? Does anyone have any language to help that out now? That would be one thing, and then the other would be timing as far as the future development of the remaining piece. Now, we would prefer to file one loaner just for the time and expense that goes into it, as opposed to trying to break it into sections just for this plaque to go to record. I heard that it was if needed. It's a possibility, but it's not a preferred possibility. Okay. It's not a preferred possibility. Okay. Thoughts? You know, I think that would be beneficial. And then if we could get some sort of note somewhere to assure that anyone buying these lots understand that they may have to get flood insurance right now. And then the third thing would be just nagging down the future development issue. Mr. Berkeley? Roy, what's roughly the typical time frame to get the lumber once you're done? From filing to acceptance? Yeah. Ten months? Nine to ten months. Nine to twelve months. So you're going to, you know, a house is probably going to be under construction for six months, five, six months, I don't know. Okay. Thoughts? Anybody else? Wishes? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, yes, Vice Chair. can we make a motion now i mean i don't know what these were these discussion items what what staff wants on that is it resolve or take take the 54 inch pipe out we discussed it i don't know i mean what um i'll go with those we can we can ask staff for some help there i think some of them a couple of them could be deleted and i think a couple of them could be changed to resolve Yes, sir. If you all are comfortable with the discussion that's taken place, they could certainly go to resolve. Staff is comfortable with that. Okay, so on plan 2014-31F, number 14 would be resolve, possibly? Yes, sir. And what about 13? Yes, sir. Resolve, take out. i don't think we can do that on 14. i would i need to omit 14 because with the platte the street would be dedicated i mean if we discussed them i'm not sure what the resolve would be on the plan itself i guess that's what i'm asking for i just think on 31f 13 and 14 given our discussion today probably could be deleted all right um those are almost identical to 14 and 15 on Unit 1C, and then the Condition 12 and Condition 13 on the two different plans. If those were changed to resolve, that would allow us the opportunity to add the additional notes and also confer with Divisional Water Quality on the status of the loanmark. All right. So I'm going to move plan approval for plan 2014-31F, changing 12 to resolve and deleting 13 and 14. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of plan 2014-31F with now 12 conditions, changing number 12 to resolve and deleting 13 and 14. Any discussion or reverge the motion, Ms. Plumlee? There's no flood insurance yet. Not on unit 1B. Those are the lots that are outside of the area shaded blue. Okay. Okay, we'll put that on the next one. Any other discussion? Everybody okay? If so, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes to the screen. Motion passes. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. I want to move approval plan 2014-32F, changing number 13 to resolve, deleting 14 and 15. And I think Ms. Plumlee wanted a note added there on the plat that these lots may need flood insurance spent on, I guess, when the loamer is completed. Need it until the loamer doesn't. Says they don't that's right So move 16 that would be That'd be number 14 that I'm mad Motions been made in second and for approval of plan 2014-32 F with the first 13 conditions changing 13 to resolve and deleting the original 14 and 15 adding number 14 in reference to the need of flood insurance prior to the LOMER being approved. Any questions regarding the motion? Let me ask, is staff okay with the language, or can they dictate the language well enough? Yes, sir. Staff's fine. Okay. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you very much. Thank you. We move on to page three at the bottom, plan 2013-37L, Turfland Mall. Ms. Blanton? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to recuse myself. I have a client that's doing some construction work on the project, and I also need to recuse myself from the public facilities report on Lex Tran for the same reason. Okay, thank you. Are you going to stay with us? You're welcome to if you'd like. I'll put her on the spot. I didn't say you did. You put her on the spot. I think she was thinking of slipping out. Let me say this in case you do slip out. I'm presuming something else may take place, which means this might be the last meeting for Ms. Blanton on the Planning Commission. She has business to take care of down the road and has chosen not to be reappointed. We will miss her. We thank her very much for the time served and wish her the best and wish she'd stay around, to tell you the truth. So just in case she does slip out, I wanted it to be known. Thank you very much. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on the bottom of page three. It is item F, Plan 2013-37F, Turf and Mall amended. This is a final record plat that has been brought back to this body for reapproval. And in association with that, there is a waiver request for this particular plat that has been passed out to you. The property in question is on the Turflin Mall property. In this area would be the Turflin Mall Dillard's building that is currently undergoing extensive demolition and renovation. Here is your Harrodsburg frontage. This is the lot that is being created at this location. You recently approved a development plan that has been certified for a restaurant at this location. The current Walgreens is immediately to the east, and over here is Lone Star. You can see, again, if you'd put the aerial up, please, try to give you orientation to the site. And I don't have a laser, which is probably a good thing. I'm dangerous. If you'll just point there for them, the location to get them oriented, please. Again, to my left, as I'm looking at the screen, would be at the Walgreens. Next one over. There you go. That's Walgreens. So that empty area of that parking lot is where the lot is being created, and you can see the access point into the mall. And you may recall when that development plan was approved, there was a lot of discussion about that access point. and the median is to be closed when that restaurant is to be developed. Although somewhat hard to see on that aerial, if you'll notice the purple lines, that is a sewer trunk line that serves this area. It crosses Harrodsburg Road and goes into the Turfland Mall property and flows on out to actually Home Depot and Croches on that line somewhat. But the sewer line that will serve this particular property is at the rear of the outlots and runs parallel to the Turflin Mall building where it's currently being remodeled. It's the green line. The purpose of the waiver is to allow the applicant to go to record with this lot so it can be transferred, purchased, and then developed. They will build a lateral from their development, which will take place here, back to that green line. That's what will serve the property. That's what serves the other outlots along this frontage. The lateral lines that connect to that line are PVC pipe and are of current, relatively modern construction. sections of that line that's on the Turflin Mall property are actually clay pipe and was constructed with the Turflin Mall property. That's important to the discussion because this is currently a private line. It was never dedicated, and the Lexington-Fed Urban County government and our sanitary sewer folks don't want to accept responsibility for the older line. It's not necessary. It's been functioning for years. It is functioning with no apparent problems. It's private, and it will remain private and remain the responsibility of the people who are using it as opposed to the urban county government. Again, the waiver is just to allow the financing and purchase of the property. They will construct the sewer line with the construction of the restaurant. So staff is recommending approval of the waiver, along with recommending re-approval of the plat, subject to the conditions that you see on today's agenda, which are fairly basic cleanup conditions for a final record plat. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, yes? Is there an agreement in place as to who does maintain that clay line? We are not aware of how those private agreements are currently in place. We will require a note to be placed on this plat stating that they are responsible. And I might add, it's a bit of perhaps it's serendipity. We have a minor amendment in place for the Turfland Mall main property for the large building. And we have already informed that engineer for the applicant that we will require a similar note on that development plan, try to give everybody a heads up as to who's responsible for maintenance. So that's kind of a happy coincidence that that, because that is a minor amendment that was brought into staff, that we hope will help clarify the maintenance issue. Any other questions? If not, applicant, anything to add? Hello, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Mark McIntosh with HDR Engineering. We are agreeable with the waiver request and the presentation by Tom and the 14 conditions that are listed. And we'd like to ask you for your approval. Thank you, sir. Any questions? No? Mr. Penn? Okay. I would make one note of clarification as far as the waiver that is before you. The numbering on the plan is incorrect. This plan is 2013-37L, and it's related to plan 2014-137L, which is obviously incorrect. It's 2013-37L. There's no further... Anything to add, Mr. Martin? Sorry about that. That's my responsibility. Just a typo. Yes. As often occurs, the brain doesn't necessarily dictate what the fingers do. There's no further questions. This is a reapproval with a waiver. We can take it all in one motion. if you're ready. Mr. Penn? If the commission's ready for a motion, we will move the approval of 2013-37F with the waiver request as presented by staff. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval, re-approval of plan 2013-37F with the waiver as stated. please vote when he comes up on the screen motion passes thank you very much thank you next on the agenda would be under on page six performance bonds letter of credit mr. Cravens yes sir mr. chairman approval of the release and call of bonds. Thank you. Do we have a second? Everybody knows what those are. Motion's been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds from the memo dated July 12, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. next still on page six under Commission items it's public facility review 2014 to Lex Tran headquarters complex miss Rackers will come and walk us through that afternoon as you said this is on page six of your agenda it is item a under commission items it's pfr 2014-2 and it's a request made by lextran for a public facility review for their proposed headquarters facility at 200 west loudon avenue we've got this is the property outlined in black here's russell cave road this is loudon avenue going this way and then this is north broadway along here it's actually two parcels one is known as 911 russell cave road and that would be the smaller of the two right in here and the other is known as 200 west loudon and then once all of this is done and they're consolidated it'll be it'll be known as 200 west out in the avenue the property is zoned i1 light industrial and that was also the last land use recommendation in the 2007 comp plan for the property and if anybody other than lextran if it was just a general somebody wanting to put in a use similar to this it would be principally permitted in this in this zone it's very similar to a um trucks truck stop or not a truck stop but a transit transfer station thank you um the total acreage of the property is 13.69 acres it is vacant and formerly it was the site of the ge manufacturing facility that did incandescent light bulbs and that was from 1946 to 2010 and in 2010 they closed the facility because of of legislation that required higher efficiency light bulbs, and so that made the incandescent light bulbs obsolete, and so they closed their facility. They are proposing two primary buildings. One will be an administration and operations facility, and that will be just a little bit less than 23,000 square feet. And if you could put the site plan up there, Bill, please. That would be this building right here. And then the other primary building is just a little bit larger than 26,000 square feet, and that's a maintenance facility. That would be this right here. They also have ancillary buildings. This would be the fueling facility right here. This would be the bus wash facility right here. This would be where the tanks, the fueling tanks, will be located. And then there is the dumpster enclosure here, and they are proposing possibly in the future a storage building over in this location. there is no known opposition to this this facility at this location and um i'm not sure that have you talked to people in the neighborhood around there to see if anybody would be in opposition to it i know councilman before has talked to quite a bit about okay good um but there isn't any known opposition and we have reviewed the 2013 comp plan and the goals and objectives of the 2012 comp plan or the 2012 goals and objectives and this is totally supported by by both the themes and goals and objectives and the text of the comprehensive plan support this the applicable goals and objectives and themes that specifically support this are listed on page two and three of your staff report and then destination 2040 which is referenced in the comprehensive plan also provides support for this lextran purchased this property in september of 2013 so that they could move from their current location they had originally planned to demolish part of their existing building which is just on the other side of north broadway on loudon avenue they were going to demolish part of that and then expand that building and because it's not large enough to accommodate all of their employees they have employees scattered around lexington and that makes operation very inefficient and difficult um when they were planning that the building was determined to have historic significance and so that would have made it difficult to get a demolition permit approval for demolition and so because this property was available because it's close to where they are now it's vacant and it's large enough to meet all their needs in one location they decided to move here they'll have between 50 and 140 employees on site at any one time it'll be occupied 24 7 It will be creating new jobs both in the construction industry and after the building is completed. There will be utility and maintenance jobs created for this property, both inside and outside. And that supports two objectives of Theme C, Goal 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. That would be Objective A, strengthen efforts to develop a variety of job opportunities that lead to prosperity for all, and D, foster the success and growth of large employment sectors, protect and provide readily available economic development land to meet the needs for jobs, and enable infill and redevelopment that creates jobs where people live. The estimated start of construction will be this August, and they're hoping to have it completed by December of 2015 and occupied by then. And besides the primary buildings and the parking, they'll have parking for the buses, which would be up in this area here, and then parking for employees and visitors over in this area. They will also have pedestrian areas. They'll have stormwater improvements to include bioswales along Loudon, and I believe probably they'll be located along in here, and that will filter the stormwater runoff and help to alleviate any stormwater problems. They'll also have landscaping along Loudon Avenue to screen the parking. You can see that along here and all along there. and down in here to screen the parking and to provide an enhancement to the frontage of the property. They don't have any additional landscaping shown on the western property line, which would be this along here. But according to the aerial, and Bill, if you would put the aerial up, please, that shows that there's landscaping along the rail line. This is the RJ Corman rail line along here, and it shows that there is a lot of landscaping and a lot of plant material along there. And that may be adequate. It looks like it could be. But they would be required zone-to-zone screening generally right along here because this is zoned residentially and professional office, and then the rest of this is industrial. So they would generally be required to have zone-to-zone screening there. And if it's not adequate what they have right now, then we recommend that they do put in additional. the project architects said that the site and the building have been designed to to a minimum lead silver status which would mean that it would be between with what they're doing to the property they would be able to accumulate between 50 and 59 points toward lead certification and that's just a minimum they are also going to meet federal transit authority regulations and these two things will ensure compliance with one goal and one objective of the comprehensive plan. That would be theme B, goal 2, which is to reduce Lexington-Feya County's carbon footprint, and theme B, goal 2, objective C, which is to provide incentives for green building, sustainable development, and transit-oriented development with civic agencies leading by example through the use of green building standards. Chapter 6 of the comprehensive plan is entitled Improving a Desirable Community, And one of the primary discussion items in that chapter is how transportation contributes to a desirable community. One of the primary discussion items is how transportation contributes to a desirable community. And the responses, there were three responses that basically answered that question of how to accomplish that. One is the provision of safe roads for pedestrians and all users. One is the reduction of traffic congestion and travel time. and one is the provision of accessible and viable alternatives to car travel. And one of the comp plan's follow-up recommendations is to expand public transit, and that is part of LexTrans long-range plans. It's one way to address roadway congestion. They're considering bus rapid transit as a possibility, and then the possibility of making US27, which is South Limestone and Nicholasville Road, a high-capacity transit corridor to address congestion and enhance transit service. that is one of the most traveled roadways in Fayette County, and that's a prime candidate for that. They've also added hybrid buses to their fleet, and all of the improvements that they're trying to make and that they're even proposing will be facilitated and hopefully enhanced with the entire employee base in one location. It'll make it a lot easier to do what they're planning on doing. Destination 2040, as I said, is referenced in the comprehensive plan. it's specifically referenced in theme f goal one objective b and that notes that the urban county government should strive to meet the local standards in order to accomplish the community's vision and a primary goal in destination 2040 was how to protect everything we value in fayette county with and still allow growth to to happen there are four aspects of community life that form the framework of destination 2040 human needs physical growth economic expansion and cultural creativity. And of those four, human needs and physical growth apply most to this project. And then each aspect of community life has a list of action approaches as well as a list of agencies that would be the ones to facilitate this. And Lex Tran was listed in four of those as the appropriate initiator agency, along with like the urban county government, the federal government, churches, places that have big parking lots. Two of those were in the human needs section. That would be to make Lexington a leader in improving air quality by reducing greenhouse gases and employing sustainable choices in housing, transportation, energy, and other community activities. As part of this approach, ensure that LFUCG, LexTran, and other public sector entities continue to invest in energy-efficient vehicles. And the other is to continue to reduce transportation barriers for low-income disabled residents to access services and reach places of employment. And then there are two in the physical growth aspect, which is to further develop park and ride and to investigate or expand existing public transportation services to regional communities. So this new larger facility will help them to participate actively in these initiatives, and it will also give them more efficiency in their operation. We find this to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for all of these reasons. It's supported by the text of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the themes, goals, and objectives. it's supported by destination 2040 and the next reference in the comprehensive plan is a means to enhance Lexington's quality of life and the only recommendation that we have as far as this goes is because the property will be occupied 24 7 and has the potential to disturb the adjoining residential properties and if the plant material along the rail line is not sufficient to screen this property from the residential properties we ask that they add to it, at least maintain it, and then add to it if necessary. Mr. Barnhart is here from Sherman Carter Barnhart. Mr. Sorrell is here from Sherman Carter Barnhart. They're the architects for the project. And then Mr. Rocky Burke is here from Lex Tran if you have any questions. Any questions, Ms. Rackers, at this point? Mr. Penn? No, I've got questions for the Lex Tran people. Okay. Okay, thank you. Who would like to come first? Doesn't matter. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Ben Sorrell. I'm with Sherman Carter Barnhart. Mr. Sorrell, I would like to know, what are you going to do about the fuel storage? Is that above ground or below ground? It's above ground, double-walled tanks, and they're visually screened from the roadway out on Loudoun with the landscaping along the front. What's the capacity? There are two 10,000-gallon diesel tanks and one 1,000-gallon unleaded tank. And there will be a pan under them or something to provide runoff, to prevent runoff? We have an oil-water separator on site to capture and contain that if there is ever a spill. But, again, they are double-walled tanks. Well, spills don't have to happen in a tank. They can happen with holes. Right, it could happen during the filling operations. Currently, we have an oil-water separator to address that. And then the other question I have, what are you going to do with the old building? I guess I ought to ask somebody else about that one. Yeah, I'm not sure. Ms. Plumlee? Yes, the funding. Who is funding this, please? It's partially funded through an FTA grant, and there are some other funding mechanisms that I'm not fully aware of, but primarily from an FTA grant that Lex Tran has submitted for. I can ask you that, Ben. Sorry. That's all right. I'm Rocky Burke. I'm the general manager for LexTrans, so hopefully I can answer most of your questions if Ben and Mr. Barnhart can't. But funding is primarily coming through a state of good repair grant through the Federal Transit Administration, and we're pursuing some other grants right now, but in the event those don't come through, we'll be using conventional bank financing or possibly a bonding project. Ms. Mundy? I have two questions. One, as we continue to seem like throughout Lexington, use up the rail line frontages and abutments, I'm curious if there is any plan in the future to have any connection there, any connectivity with the rail lines for passengers. Question. Obviously, that was one of the selling points for us for buying that property. at some point in time, probably not in my lifetime, but hopefully there will be some sort of rail service, passenger rail in Lexington. So that connects our property, and there's actually a spur onto our property. So we plan on keeping that just for future use. You're young enough. We'll see it. Yes, Ms. Mundy. I have one more question. I think this is probably for the architect. Why is it only 50% LEED? Why is it only 50% lead? I would probably have to say budget constraints maybe led to part of that, but we've implemented as many site improvements that we can to achieve as many lead points as we can. The RFP from the FTA required that we meet lead silver, and that was our goal from the beginning. So if we get beyond that, that would be fantastic. We're certainly pursuing as many green and sustainable initiatives as we can. But right now, LEED Silver is the target. Okay. Will that answer your question? Yeah. My name is Charlie Barnhart, and Ben and I have been working throughout this project. This project is one of few projects that will be certified as a LEED certified campus. It takes advantage of the light reflectivity of the parking areas. We're using all concrete in that area so we can get the heat island effect. Our initial scorecard for our LEED shows us in the high 50s. So we are anticipating a LEED Silver certification, but we are very close to the next level of certification. So we certainly will not fall below that, but we're looking at other opportunities if they exist. Thank you. Mr. Penn? Yeah, let me ask you about the old building because we've done a, that's a limestone corridor that we really need to work on. What's your plans for the old building? We, up to this point, we've obviously focused all our efforts on acquiring the new property. At this point in time, we don't know what we're going to do with the old property at this point in time. We have to follow Federal Transit Administration guidelines for the sale of it, but that essentially says it has to be competitively sold. But, you know, lots of folks have expressed interest in the property, and I guess I should just say that right now we will have a plan for that right now. I guess is probably the best way to put it. Well, the reason I ask that question is that that's a key corner to develop that area. Yes, sir. I would hope that you all wouldn't need that and that could go back into private development and we could do something pretty exciting on that corner. It's our plan to sell it because part of the financing plan is to take the proceeds from that and help us with the sale of the other. So that will be both properties that you've got there? That's correct, sir. Thank you. Mr. Park, let me follow up with that just a little bit as far as that building. I read something in here as far as historic significance. Can you explain that? Yes. When we purchased the property, I guess in 2000, way before my time, but we purchased that property, and the State Historic Preservation Office at Frankfort had come by and looked at the property and deemed that it had no historic significance. so i guess three years later or three years ago when we began this process once again the state historic preservation people were were were on site again and did another review and people had changed staff had changed and they determined that building did have significant historic significance and not so much for the architecture of the building but because of what had been there which is it was an old bus company that was actually the precursor to the greyhound lines so because of that transportation significance dating back to probably the 20s they felt like that it was significant and would not allow us to condemn any portion of the building. And our plan all along had been to take down the warehouse piece and restore the front two-story brick piece for our administrative facility. But if we were required to keep it all, we simply could not put the footprint that we needed on that site for storage of buses and maintenance. Okay, thank you. I've heard that and won't get into discussion as to good or bad, but I just wanted to bring that out. Yes. Any other questions? yeah i i would just simply say you know a little bit of discussion as far as the lead silver status as miss rackers pointed out landscaping and so forth and you know anytime city state federal is involved as far as i'm concerned we should lead lead by example so anything possible that you can do in that regard i think would be greatly appreciated any other questions or comments if not i'll entertain a motion mr penn i was trying to think of the correct motion it's it's not that we approve it we reviewed it but mrs rogers am i correct in that i will move that that they are in compliance and we have reviewed it thank you uh do we have a second motion been made and seconded by mr smith uh for uh the fact that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan this is pfr 2014-2 if there's no further discussion please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes thank you very much moving on to commission items under b appointment of nominating committee for commission officers from july until july's when officers hold their office the way our bylaws read we appoint a nominating committee today Typically, to let everyone know, the nominating committee normally reports back at the work session next week, and after that we'd have a vote for the election of officers' first official meeting in July. there has been some discussion I'll let everybody know of cancellation of a work session next week and as you can see possibly a cancellation of our last meeting in June checked with our legal staff miss Jones and she feels like we still can comply with all needed open records or bylaws if the appointment of this nominating committee does take place today subsequent any reporting can be done by email from Commission members as long as the report is made at the meeting in July and subsequent vote that it would meet all of our requirements I'll put it that way anything to add Miss Jones or mr. King no so with that the last two years what we have done as far as selection of a nominating committee it's been by volunteer basis we need three people once we get those three wonderful volunteers we would need a motion for approval of those and we'll move forward so at that point I'll open it up for volunteers we got one Mr. Berkeley's two we need a third You want to flip a coin? No. Okay. So, Carolyn, we've got three. So with that, we need a motion for the acceptance of that. Mr. Chairman, move approval. We've got approval and apparently a second by Mr. Wilson as well. That Frank Penn, Will Berkley, and Carolyn Plumlee will be on the nominating committee. so with that please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes thank you very much for the volunteer aspect of that next would be as I mentioned to amend our meeting and filing a meeting schedule our wonderful staff is looking at giving us off this next week as far as a work session which would be July june the 19th i need a motion for that if you all want to take a week of vacation for that day yes mr berkeley i'm glad you woke up make a motion to uh cancel our next work session meeting. Thank you. How are we doing? Just the one, right? Yes, and we'll get to the other one in a minute. Motion's been made and seconded for the change of our filing meeting schedule and to cancel the June 19th work session. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes, and I should acknowledge the fact that Mr. Berkley was well involved with the discussion earlier. Next would be to do the same on our zoning hearing for June the 26th. We need a motion for the cancellation of that. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion for the cancellation of the regular zoning meeting on the 26th. Yes, sir. Do we have a second? Yes. motion has been made and seconded for the cancellation of our June 26 2014 meeting please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes do we have any other Commission items well do you want to make that motion does does our staff have any other items if not I'll entertain a motion for adjournment all those in favor please say I meetings adjourned thank you very much