# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - September 11, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 11, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3453 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3453?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-09-11 - **Last revised**: September 11, 2014 - **Length**: 13,879 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 September 11, 2014, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Owens presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed nine agenda items during the session, all of which were approved, demonstrating a productive meeting focused on various development and subdivision matters throughout the county. The agenda included a diverse range of projects, from commercial enterprises like Local Enterprises, Inc. and Little Beginners Child Development Center to residential developments such as Masterson Hills, Brookhaven Subdivision, and Kirklevington Hills Apartments. The commission conducted four motions and votes during the proceedings, with all items receiving approval. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, suggesting either limited public attendance or no citizen input on the matters under consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the September 11, 2014 meeting: • Mike Owens • Mike Cravens • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Joseph Smith • Will Berkley • Carolyn Richardson • David Drake • Patrick Brewer Two members were absent from the meeting: • Frank Penn • Bill Wilson No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of nine members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included four formal votes, all of which passed unanimously with all seven members present voting in favor. **Minutes Approval** Mike Cravens motioned to approve the minutes of the August 14, 2014 meeting, with Carolyn Plumlee providing the second. The motion passed unanimously 7-0, with votes from Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, Will Berkley, and Carolyn Richardson. **PLAN 2014-58F Postponement** Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone DALLAS PLAZA, UNIT 1, BLOCK A, LOT 1 (PATCHEN PLACE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1) (AMD), seconded by Karen Mundy. The postponement was approved unanimously 7-0, with the same seven members voting in favor. **PLAN 2014-49F Postponement** Karen Mundy motioned to postpone PINEHURST SUBDIVISION, LOT 33 (AMD), with Carolyn Plumlee seconding the motion. This postponement also passed unanimously 7-0, with all seven members supporting the decision. **Consent Agenda Approval** Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve all items listed on the Consent Agenda, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion carried unanimously 7-0, with votes from Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, Will Berkley, and Carolyn Richardson. All votes demonstrated complete consensus among the seven-member body, with no dissenting votes, abstentions, or conditions attached to any of the approved motions. The meeting proceeded efficiently through both administrative matters and planning-related postponements without controversy. ## LOCAL ENTERPRISES, INC The commission reviewed Plan 2014-61P for Local Enterprises, Inc, which involved approval of a preliminary subdivision plan located at 4595 Tates Creek Road. The agenda item was presented as a discussion item requiring commission action on the proposed subdivision development. The plan underwent review as part of the standard preliminary subdivision approval process. Following discussion, the commission approved the preliminary subdivision plan for Local Enterprises, Inc. The approval allows the project to proceed to the next phase of the development process. *Note: Specific details of the discussion, including key speakers and any concerns raised, were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## SHARKEY PROPERTY, UNIT 2-C, SECTION 1 & UNIT 3, SECTION 4 (AMD) The commission considered Plan 2014-59F, an amendment to the Sharkey Property development affecting Unit 2-C, Section 1 and Unit 3, Section 4. The proposed amendment sought to revise the location of sidewalk infrastructure and establish a 5-foot sidewalk easement on the property. The amendment addressed modifications to the previously approved development plan, specifically focusing on pedestrian infrastructure improvements. The revision involved relocating existing sidewalk placement and creating a dedicated 5-foot easement to accommodate the sidewalk installation. No specific speakers were identified in the available records for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were provided for the discussion. The nature of the debate, specific concerns raised by commissioners, or detailed presentation materials were not documented in the meeting materials. The commission ultimately approved the amendment, allowing the developer to proceed with the revised sidewalk location and the establishment of the 5-foot sidewalk easement as requested. This approval enables the Sharkey Property development to move forward with the modified pedestrian infrastructure plan for the specified units and sections. The amendment represents a relatively routine adjustment to development plans, focusing on public infrastructure elements that support pedestrian access and safety within the development. The approval of Plan 2014-59F allows the project to continue with the updated sidewalk configuration. ## LITTLE BEGINNERS CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER (FRANCIS SAID PROPERTY) The board reviewed and approved Plan 2014-60F for the Little Beginners Child Development Center final subdivision plan. The project involves property owned by Francis Said and is located at 474 Stone Road. The agenda item focused on the approval of the final subdivision plan for the child development center facility. This represents the final stage of the subdivision approval process, following preliminary plan approval and addressing any conditions that may have been established during earlier review phases. The board voted to approve the final subdivision plan for the Little Beginners Child Development Center project. No specific concerns or extended debate were noted in the available meeting materials for this agenda item. The approval allows the subdivision to move forward to the construction and development phase, enabling the establishment of the child development center at the Stone Road location. ## MAHAN PROPERTY, UNIT 2-B The commission considered Plan 2013-83F for the reapproval of the Mahan Property, Unit 2-B development located at 2980 Man o' War Boulevard. This agenda item involved the reapproval of a previously considered development plan for the Mahan Property. The specific details of the discussion, including any presentations made by staff or the applicant, concerns raised by commissioners, or public comments, were not captured in the available meeting records. The commission ultimately approved Plan 2013-83F for the Mahan Property, Unit 2-B reapproval. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed discussion points are not available for this agenda item.* ## BROOKHAVEN SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1-F, BLOCK A, LOT 1 (AMD) The board considered Plan 2014-68F, an amendment to the Brookhaven Subdivision, Unit 1-F, Block A, Lot 1. The proposal sought approval to subdivide one existing lot into two separate lots. The amendment was presented as a straightforward subdivision request that would create two buildable lots from the current single parcel. No specific details about the lot dimensions, proposed uses, or development plans were recorded in the available materials. No speakers were identified as participating in the discussion of this agenda item, and no concerns or objections were noted during the proceedings. The amendment appears to have proceeded without significant debate or controversy. The board approved the subdivision amendment, allowing the property owner to move forward with dividing the single lot into two separate parcels within the Brookhaven Subdivision development. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## MASTERSON HILLS, UNIT 1-C The meeting addressed Plan 2013-98F for Masterson Hills, Unit 1-C, a development project located at 3000 Spurr Road. The primary matter under consideration was the approval of a one-year extension for this development unit. The agenda item was presented as a discussion item requiring council action. The extension request pertained to extending the timeline for the Masterson Hills, Unit 1-C development, which had previously received approval but required additional time to complete the project requirements. No specific speakers were identified in the available records for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were provided to reference particular portions of the discussion. The deliberation appears to have proceeded without significant debate or extended discussion based on the available documentation. The council ultimately approved the one-year extension request for Masterson Hills, Unit 1-C. This approval allows the development project at 3000 Spurr Road to proceed with an extended timeline, providing the developers additional time to meet their obligations and complete the necessary work for this unit of the larger Masterson Hills development. The approval of this extension indicates the council found the request reasonable and in compliance with municipal development standards and procedures. Such extensions are typically granted when developers can demonstrate legitimate reasons for delays and continued progress toward project completion. ## MAN O' WAR DEVELOPMENT, UNIT 2A, LOTS A-20 & A-21 (AMD) The board considered agenda item DP 2014-71, an amendment to the Man O' War Development for Unit 2A, specifically addressing Lots A-20 and A-21. The proposed amendment sought approval to reconfigure the buildable area, parking arrangements, and circulation patterns within the development. The amendment represented modifications to the previously approved development plan, focusing on optimizing the layout and functionality of the designated lots. The changes involved adjustments to where structures could be built on the property, as well as revisions to how vehicles would access and park within the development area. No specific speakers were identified in the available records for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamp was provided for the discussion period. The nature and extent of any debate or concerns raised during the consideration of this amendment were not documented in the extracted materials. Following the board's review and discussion of the proposed changes to the Man O' War Development, the amendment was approved. This approval allows the developer to proceed with the reconfigured buildable areas and the revised parking and circulation plan for Lots A-20 and A-21 in Unit 2A of the development. The approval of DP 2014-71 represents the board's acceptance of the proposed modifications to the original development plan, enabling the project to move forward with the updated configuration that addresses buildable space allocation and traffic flow considerations within the specified lots. ## KIRKLEVINGTON HILLS APARTMENTS – SOUTH (AMD) The commission reviewed agenda item DP 2014-78, an amendment to the Kirklevington Hills Apartments – South development plan. The proposed amendment sought approval to revise the building location and add 4 additional apartments to the existing project. The amendment represented modifications to the previously approved development, with the primary changes being a relocation of building placement on the site and an expansion of the residential units from the original plan. The addition of 4 apartments would increase the overall density of the Kirklevington Hills Apartments – South development. No specific concerns or extended debate were documented regarding this amendment. The proposal appeared to be a straightforward modification to accommodate the revised building positioning and unit count increase. The commission approved the amendment, allowing the developer to proceed with the revised building location and the additional 4 apartments as requested in DP 2014-78. ## BROOKHAVEN SUBDIVISION (AMD #10) The commission considered agenda item DP 2013-19, an amendment to the Brookhaven Subdivision development plan. The proposed amendment sought approval to add building square footage and revise the parking arrangements for the project. The amendment represents the tenth modification (AMD #10) to the original Brookhaven Subdivision development plan, indicating ongoing adjustments to the project specifications since its initial approval. The specific details of the building square footage increase and parking revisions were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The amendment was presented to the commission for their review and consideration as part of the standard development plan modification process. Following discussion, the commission approved the amendment, allowing the requested changes to building square footage and parking to proceed as part of the Brookhaven Subdivision development. The approval of DP 2013-19 AMD #10 enables the developer to move forward with the modified building and parking specifications for the Brookhaven Subdivision project. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the minutes of the August 14, 2014, meeting - **PLAN 2014-58F** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of DALLAS PLAZA, UNIT 1, BLOCK A, LOT 1 (PATCHEN PLACE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1) (AMD) - **PLAN 2014-49F** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of PINEHURST SUBDIVISION, LOT 33 (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of items listed on the Consent Agenda --- ## Full transcript Thank you. I thought it was over, baby He said our goodbyes But I can't go a day Without your face Going through my mind In fact, not a safe minute Passes without you in it Your voice, your touch Memories of your love are with me all of the time Let me let go, baby Let me let go This is for the best Why are you still in my heart? Are you still in my soul? Let me let go I talked to you the other day Looks like you made your escape You put us behind No matter how I try I can't do the same Let me let go, baby Let me let go It just isn't right I've been 2,000 miles down a dead end road Let me let go, darling Won't you I just gotta know, yeah If this is for the best, why are you still in my heart? Are you still in my soul? Let me let go Lights of this strange city all shining But they don't hold no vaccination for me I try to find the right side, baby But everywhere I look, everywhere I turn You're all I see Let me, let me let go Baby, won't you let me let go It just isn't right. I've been 2,000 miles down the dead end road. Oh, let me let go, darling. Oh, I just got enough. This is for the best. Why are you stealing my heart? Yeah, you're stealing my soul. Let me let go Let me let go Let me let go Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I was taking account. We do have a quorum. I'll call this meeting to order for September 11, 2014. We do have minutes from August 14, 2014 for approval. They were emailed earlier. There have been one correction. I have not seen any others. If so, please let it be known now. or otherwise, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Move approval of the corrected minutes of August 14th. Thank you. Motion's been made in second and for approval of the minutes from August 14th, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next on the agenda would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Anyone in the audience wish to? Good afternoon, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page 2, item B, plan 2014-58F, Dallas Plaza, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 1, patch and place subdivision, Unit 1 amended at 2800 Richmond Road. I represent the applicant. We are requesting a one-month postponement of that one. Mr. Murphy, you ran that through that past me very quickly. Where are you? Yeah, sorry. Page two, item B, Dallas Plaza. Oh, okay. I've got you. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Let's see here. The date on that would be? October 9th. Thank you, Mr. Salley. So the request is for one month postponement until October 9th for Plan 2014-58F, Dallas Plaza. If there's no further questions, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, move postponement of Plan 2014-58F, Dallas Plaza to October 9th. Second. The motion has been made and seconded for one month postponement. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to direct the Planning Commission's attention to page 2 of your agenda. Under final subdivision plans, item A. This is Plan 2014-49F Pinehurst Subdivision, Lot 33, amended. Staff has received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, I would remind the commission this is an item that you began discussing four weeks ago today at your subdivision meeting. It was continued to your meeting two weeks ago and at that time was postponed. So there has been some discussion on this, but a postponement can be done. Yes, sir. So in all honesty, that would be a continuation then. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the continuance until October 9th. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for continuation of Plan 2014-49F Pinehurst Subdivision Lot 33 for one month. Motion's been made in second and fourth postponement for one month until October the 9th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? If not, we do have a consent agenda today. I'll ask Mr. Saleh to walk us through the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm happy to report to you that many of your remaining items do qualify for consideration at this time for approval of your consent agenda. The very first item appears on page one of your agenda, item A. there is a preliminary subdivision plan that has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. It is Plan 2014-61P, Local Enterprises Incorporated. This involves property at 4595 Tates Creek Road. There are several final subdivision plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. I would note the very first one listed is one of the items you just postponed a few moments ago. The first item remaining is on page 2, item C of your meeting agenda, plan 2014-59F, Sharkey Property Unit 2C, Section 1, and Unit 3, Section 4. This is an amended final record plat involving property with an address of 201 Town Square Park at the corner of Town Square Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 3, item D, plan 2014-60F, Little Beginners Child Development Center, also known as the Francis Said property, located at 474 Stone Road. Page 3, item E, this plat is on your consent agenda, plan 2013-83F, the Mayhem property unit 2B. This involves property with an address at 2980 Manowar Boulevard. On page 3, item F, plan 2014-68F, Brookhaven subdivision unit 1F block A lot 1. This is an amended final plat for property at 3050 Kirk Levington Drive. There is one final subdivision plan recommended for a one-year extension by your staff. That is on the consent agenda. It is page 4 item G of your meeting agenda plan 2013-98F Masterson Hills unit 1C involving property with an address of 3000 Spur Road. There are three final development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 5, item C of your meeting agenda, DP 2014-71, Manowar Development, Unit 2A, Lots A20 and A21. This is an amended final development plan for property with an address of 1908 Bryant Road. On page 6, item F of your meeting agenda, DP 2014-78, an amended final development plan for Kirk Levington Hills Apartments South at 3050 Kirk Levington Drive. And the final item on your consent agenda is the very next item on your meeting agenda, page 7, item G, DP 2013-19, Amendment No. 10 to the final development plan for the Brookhaven Subdivision, located at 2434 and 2450 Nicholasville Road. Mr. Chairman, all these items can be considered at this time by the commission for approval as recommended either by the staff or by your subdivision committee unless a member of the planning commission, a member of the audience here today, or an applicant would ask to remove one of these items to allow you to have further discussion about it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience wish to hear any one of these items on the consent agenda? Commission members? If not, I'll ask for a motion, take a note that the second item, Plan 2014-58F, has been postponed. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, move approval of the consent agenda. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and second for approval. With the consent agenda as read, please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes thank you the remaining items on the agenda if it's okay with the commission we may take one item out of order we did continue a zone change request MAR 2014-16 caller properties last month until today. It is on page 8. If it's alright for the commission we'll take it out of order and see if we can't take care of this at this time. It is caller properties LLC zoning map amendment Chevy Chase shops zoning development plan We do have the zone change request and an associated, let me say, zone change request with conditional zoning restrictions showing some prohibited uses, which are top of page 9. And the ZDP 2014-65 also shown on page 9. I believe you do have paperwork on a tan sheet and a blue sheet showing revised staff recommendations for the ZDP. We'll let the staff set up. I think Ms. Jones is going to, I'm sorry, Ms. Wade is going to walk us through and bring us up to date. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I would like to state that I was absent during part of that hearing the last time, but I have reviewed the recording of it and also served on the subdivision committee or the zoning committee that approved it. So I would like to sit in on it. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Wade. All right. Chairman Owens, members of the commission, And two weeks ago at the August 28th public hearing, the Planning Commission heard presentations from the staff in terms of the zone change as well as the development plan about property on Euclid Avenue and Marquis, the corner there. It is three parcels, and the request is to rezone those three parcels from a P1 zone to a B1 zone. The staff is recommending approval of both the zone change and the associated development plan. The requested or the recommendation for the zone change also involved a recommendation from the staff for a set of conditional zoning restrictions, A through H, and that's included on your agenda today. the commission had quite a bit of discussion about that conditional zoning restrictions and i believe that's what led to the continuation of the hearing at this point the commission has closed the public comment portion of the public hearing and the staff would be available to answer any questions that the commission might have as we go forward i won't go through the details again but as chairman owens told you you do have the brown packet which is normally in your notebook for public hearing and attached to that is the subdivision or development plan recommendation in a blue sheet. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Wade. Any questions for Ms. Wade at this point? No? Mr. Sally? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things to add. The staff passed out just before your meeting today a copy of the staff exhibit that we also had available for you two weeks ago. We have one item on on the zoning development plan recommendation that was considered during your public hearing two weeks ago about the setback from Euclid Avenue. We can post that on Elmo so that you have that again back in front of you. And then finally, I would inform the commission that since your hearing occurred two weeks ago, the staff has received an additional 10 emails and just prior to this meeting a petition on this. should you wish to reopen the hearing, we'll be glad to circulate these to you at that time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Saleh. As has been mentioned, this was a continued discussion item. And as both Mr. Saleh and Ms. Wade stated, the presentation and public discussion was closed a month ago, and it was left in the hands or at the point of discussion among commission members. At that time, there were a couple of motions that did not pass, and subsequently we continued it at that point. Let me mention a particular interest. Mr. Sally has put up on the screen one of the items that was discussed, which would be the setback. There were two other items, quite a bit of discussion in regards to the conditional zoning restrictions, prohibited uses, centering on C and D, whether to leave them as prohibited or remove them and allow them. And then the third item was discussion as far as the drive-through itself. So let me ask this from the applicant at this time. One simple question. Do you have any new information to put forth at this time? I don't think this is new information, but I'm just trying to confirm where we left off. That the applicant is willing to agree to eliminate the parking along Marquise Avenue on its side of the street to improve visibility and to put a speed hump in the alley at a a location to be determined by traffic to calm, to slow down traffic in the alley. Okay. And that, let's see, we were in agreement with A and B, E, F, G, and H of the conditional uses and just requested. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. That's where we'll talk. Okay. So at this point, I'll open it back up for discussion among commission members. Anyone? Yes, ma'am. So the drive-thru is still there? Just a question. At the present time, unless we take it out, yes. Mr. Berkeley? I've got a comment about the drive-thru. When we got done the other day, I made a list of all the drive-thrus in that area. We just recently approved one for Kroger's. You have Republic Bank across the street has drive-thru. You have Fifth Third Bank that has drive-thru. You have the dry cleaners on the corner of Euclid that has drive-through. Down on, what is that, Woodland, there's several drive-throughs down there. So I don't think a drive-through is a problem here. You know, from another standpoint, I think a drive-through makes it a better property, and which we don't want to, you know, approve zoning and then not make it the best property we can, in my opinion. It will increase rents and increases the value of the property. So I'm still in favor of the drive-thru. Thank you. Mr. Sally, let me direct this either to you or Traffic. you can decide which you would like to reply. Can you refresh our memory as to exactly what's going on with the drive-through? Any changes, any improvements or anything? I should point out... There you go. I should point out that this is the same development plan you looked at two weeks ago. It has not been altered. It proposes access to Euclid with off-street parking and two accesses to McCaw's Alley, which parallels Euclid and intersects at Marquis on this end and Park on the opposite end. This is a two-way movement here. The drive-through would be a one-way movement from the parking lot to Marquis. This plan, unlike some of the earlier versions, does show a widening of the alley along approximately three-quarters of their frontage. That widening, Ms. Kalker may have to correct me on this. Looking at the section, looks like a six-foot widening, according to the cross-section. Thank you, Mr. Sally. any questions with what Mr. Salley presented? If not, other questions or comments at this time? If not, yes, ma'am. Mr. Salley, can you tell me, and maybe you cannot, but how McCall's Alley lines up with the entrance that we permitted on marquee at the rear of Kroger? I can do my best. Okay. And I probably ought to use the inset map. McCauze is here. The access to Kroger is approximately here. So it is approximately halfway to the only entrance. No, nowhere near opposite. Other questions? Ms. Plumlee? Okay. I agree with my colleague about the higher and best use of the property, but I was considering the neighbors on the other side of that alley that maybe a drive-through would be more invasive than just a non-drive-through. And then the other thing, as my colleague has just asked, the driveways don't line up, so you've got left and right turns a lot, which we'd more like to have our driveways line up. Thank you. Other comments? Questions? Questions? if not we'll move on and I'll ask for a motion let's see here we did have two motions of varying opinions last time neither one of them passed so we'll leave it at that and we'll try again Mr. Chairman Yes, sir. I'm going to make a motion for approval of MAR 2014-16, taking out under the prohibited uses. I think C could be, shouldn't be prohibited out of there. I don't see that that's a big, any reason to deny C to go in there, but maybe take D out as a prohibited use. Or leave D in as a prohibited use. Get it backwards. That's my motion. Okay, so your motion is for approval of MAR 2014-16. changing the prohibited uses, removing C. C is no longer prohibited, and for the reasons by staff. Okay. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Any discussion in regards to the motion? if not uh i'll ask you to vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes we have a zdp okay mr chairman yes sir ready for motion yes sir move approval of zdp 2014-65 the revised language on screen the revised staff recommendation okay motion's been made and seconded for approval of zdp 2014-65 Chevy Chase Shops let me ask a question Mr. Cravens the language on the screen overhead disappeared can we get it back that was part of a discussion and I didn't know if you were are you planning on including that or or not yeah I'll go along with that revise staff recommendation on the blue sheet and then the revise of that what's shown on the screen up on the screen okay they said they'd put I mean the speed bumps on somebody else's property right in the alley the speed hump would go in the alley I think it's a public alley is that off site of yours well off site yes but right the alley runs parallel behind it I don't care about the speed bump if you want to do it. That's okay. Okay. You want the speed bump? Okay, with the speed bump in. So, okay, so the amended motion for ZDP 2014 is seven conditions, including the language shown up on this screen and also for the inclusion of a speed bump. Mr. Berkeley, did you second that motion? Are you okay with that? Okay. So we have a motion that's been seconded. Any discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. What we will do is return to our normal order on the agenda, which would take us to, I believe, page 4 under development plans DP 2014-64 South Broadway Place located Simpson Avenues, Prospect Avenues and Burley Avenues. You do have before you a revision which is on a light gray sheet. Mr. Markman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is DP 2014-64 on page 4 of your agenda. South Broadway Place, Phase 2A and 3, Lynn Grove Edition as amended. This is a final development plan in this area that is following a zone change that was granted for this part of the property. This is an existing development that was previously approved, a multifamily development in this area. You can see that Simpson Avenue comes into the property in this location. Virginia Avenue would be up in this location. Burley Avenue is down through here. And we have the railroad track here. The University of Kentucky, Limestone, all that area would be in this direction. This particular part of the development plan, you can see the layout with apartment building here, two proposed here, and here. These have been previously approved on other plans. This is the area of the new development. There's townhouses located and proposed in this location. Again, Simpson Avenue will feed into the property in this location. Simpson Avenue has been closed. It is now a private, will be a private access from the public right-of-way that ends approximately here that will serve the area. You can see the parking that's been laid out. The complete proposal and complete development will have 232 units with 367 bedrooms total in this phase, and that includes the apartments and the townhouses. The parking will be over, there will be 376 spaces total serving the development. The new area comprises 129 new units. So it's a little bit different because it's a combined area. But again, this was the area of the zone change, and it was incorporated with the existing development. The street in this location, Prospect as well, has also been closed here. This plan that you see was revised due to several concerns. The parking layout that you see and the building layout here is a revision based on concern about circulation and the ability for fire to get in there and turn around and maneuver. So this plan has addressed that concern with a new layout, as well as solid waste and those types of services now can maneuver in the interior of the property. The other significant change to this property, there was a building in this location. It has been split in two. You can see with two different buildings here. The pedestrian access that was much discussed at the preliminary as well is now proposed on this plan is to provide access across the railroad to the University of Kentucky for residents of the development. Now, we have handed out to you revised conditions. We, of course, have standard conditions associated with this plan for a development plan that you can see, as well as the fact that they've addressed a lot of cleanup conditions on this plan. There are a few cleanup conditions that do remain. However, the issues that still face this plan and the staff's concern with this plan has to do with two conditions that remain on your plan. And those are 14 and 15. And we have handed out to you a white piece of paper with two notes right here. Those notes are notes 24 and 25 on the development plan. They are carryovers from the preliminary development plan that were associated with the zone change and with concerns that were developed during that time period with the development of the property. I would like to address 25, if I may, first, which is actually condition 15 on your handout. And that is that a sanitary sewer plan should be provided at the time of the final development plan addressing provisions for the sanitary sewer service and associated easements. Now, that was developed prior to the CAP program being implemented. So there was concern about the ability with this property as well as others and the ability to provide sanitary sewer service. There are two trunk lines on this property, 15 inches and 21 inches available. There is capacity in the watershed, is staff's understanding. So it will just be incumbent upon this developer to assure that he's got capacity under the CAP program. and they can now do what everyone else is allowed to do. They can make an application for that capacity. But again, that note was devised at a time when that program hadn't been fully refined and implemented, as it has been. Staff is confident in our conversations with others that they can reserve capacity and they can serve this. Again, I mentioned the number of units. That's a slight increase over the revised plan. but over the original plan. However, again, they will have to make application for capacity, and that is a standard way of operating now in our environment. So, again, that's the reason for that note, and that was one concern. Again, staff is confident that that can be addressed. The easement discussion comes about for the simple reason that when Simpson was closed, there was public sewer in the right-of-way, as there usually is, and that would have to be addressed. And those things are normally addressed whenever we do close right away, which has been done. They will have to create an easement as necessary in providing that sanitary sewer to the approval of our engineering folks. The other item is the note that concerns stormwater. And you can see that a stormwater management study was to be prepared at the time of the final development plan. As you all are aware, it's not unusual at a zone change where there are concerns outlined and made aware that we will kind of push them down the road, kick the can down the road, and say, we know we've got these concerns. They're on the table. We're going to deal with them at the appropriate time. And as you're aware, final development plans are that time. They're going to build off these. This is what they want to build, what you see right here. This is what they're proposing to build. The issue for the stormwater is that the original building was right here. And this large blue area, you can see that we've outlined for you, that is a proposed underwater stormwater detention facility. And that building was going to be sitting on a large part of that on the original plan. That raised tremendous concerns with the Fayette County, Urban County staff on how that would function. So in response to those concerns, you can see they've split the building. And here we have, this is the flow of water from over here at the University of Kentucky in that part of our community. Flows under the rural track. here's an easement that will flow through and it'll flow into a basin an underground vault that they're proposing in this location and it will outflow through an existing system there is a another handout or not a handout pardon me an exhibit i want to put up that i think will help illustrate Now, I know at that scale, it's somewhat difficult, but if, yes, focus that in. You can see the railroad running through the middle of that aerial photograph right there. That's the railroad. And on the top side, you see that large odd-shaped triangle, if you can see that. It's large. On further down to the railroad right there. That's this right here, folks. That's this area. That's where they had originally proposed the building. That's the existing basin that is there to help serve all the flow that's coming under the railroad and hitting this area. It then goes into the existing systems. They're somewhat hard to see, but those are those orange, yellowish-orange lines that show you there is a stormwater system in the area that serves the area. It is an older system, of course, and being an older part of town, although parts of it are newer with the newer development. But again, it's a very large basin. The concern at the time was the fact that this is an underground vault that they're proposing. And it's not just any underground vault. Those have been built on some other developments. It's relatively new to our community, but they have been utilized in other sites. The concern particularly was the size of this vault. This is going to have to be a very large, constructed, and engineered facility. It's going to have to address the capacity of the current basin. It's going to have to address the development, the new development. And there has been some preliminary discussions on the need for it to perhaps address some downstream flooding. flooding. There is a property downstream that staff and your engineering staff is aware that has had some stormwater flooding problems. Those are the stormwater issues that staff believes are on the table. They need to be addressed. We are aware and we've had some discussions that the applicant would like to consider this in the normal way of doing things. And staff would inform you that, yes, quite often we approve development plans, and in the normal flow of review prior to the building permit, they will review specific and very detailed infrastructure plans with calculations. The concern that exists on staff's part is that this isn't your usual circumstance. We are considering a very large underground detention basin with a lot of issues we believe that need to be accounted for in the stormwater management of this area. And furthermore, in conversations, we believe that not quite enough work has been done up front to ensure that this will work and that this is appropriate. And again, just to point out, that concern is they've modified their plan, and they're showing it in this location. This is a final development plan. This is specific information. What they are presenting to us today and to this body, to you, this is how we want to do it. This is how we think it will work. Well, if it doesn't work, then there could be an impact, obviously, again, on the layout of this plan. could possibly result in a return before this body. And so we're concerned that perhaps, or not perhaps, we're concerned that this is premature at this time and some additional work needs to be done to consider the impacts of the stormwater. And with that, you can see that staff is still recommending postponement of the plan at this time. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, I didn't hear it specifically. It sounds like you're asking for more information. Specifically, what? Design of the stormwater facility. It, again, is going to be a very large facility and an underground facility as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? No? Applicant? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Dennis Anderson, Anderson Communities. and we're in general agreement with the conditions as presented. I think Mr. Martin has gone over them all and it's really down to a discussion of the stormwater issues. He pointed out we've checked the sanitary situation. He's changed that to resolve compliance and we have two potential sanitary sewer lines we can use and it appears that the capacity is there. So I want to discuss the stormwater for a minute. As Mr. Martin mentioned, we do want to do this in the normal procedure of doing things, and there's a good reason for that, and that's because it's really normal that you design the stormwater after the development plan is approved because then you know what you're designing. And I'll give you an example here. Let me get out my pointer. Our original plan, as Mr. Martin mentioned, had these two buildings essentially being one building, and we were building them. The line under the railroad comes out here, and we were diverting the water around the building there. And from what hydrological engineers have explained to me, when we do that, even though it's the same volume of water, it gets slowed down and it actually impacts the volume of storage that you have to have. So when we split the buildings here, that is going to change the equation of the amount of water we have. Now, normally, if we were in the normal process of doing things, you would take a vote on this. The development plan would get approved. Then we'd come in for building permits, and we'd have to do the exact calculations and demonstrate to the Division of Engineering and the Division of Water Quality that our plans collect the proper amount of volume of stormwater. And that's important because I know there's the note on the plan, which Mr. Merton and the staff is concerned about, saying that the stormwater management study will be prepared at the time of final development plan. Well, here we're at the final development plan. It was our assumption that that meant certification of the development plan, and we have no problem with that because once you all vote on it, We know what our configuration can be, and we can do the calculations. But as I mentioned, we don't want to go through the stormwater exercise twice. In other words, once for what we're showing now, but if you haven't approved it, then there's a possibility buildings are going to be moved around and shifted, and that's going to shift the calculations, and we're going to have to do it all over again. And so we want to, some of it's an economy matter, some of it's a time matter. We want to do it once, and we want to do it when we know what the configurations of the building are. So we would propose that we do this prior to certification of the plan, which means that under the conditions you already have, We have the urban county engineers sign off on this prior to being certified. We have the division of water quality sign off on this prior to can be certified. But this way we know what the configuration is. We can come up with those plans. We can make sure everybody's confident that we're doing the right calculations for the right plan. So that's what we're requesting. It makes it very difficult if we have to do all those detailed calculations before we even get the vote on our development plan right now. It puts us in a conundrum financially, timing-wise, and all that. We want to do it right. We're not trying to get out of the requirement that we do a water study. We know we need to do the water study. We're going to do the water study, and we want to get it right. So that's our, what do we have to say now? Obviously, we want to respond to any issues people bring up, but we would request that the finalty condition number 14 be changed similar to the condition on 15 or allow it prior to certification of the development plan. And with that, we agree to the other conditions that are listed here. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Yes, sir. Just to clear that part up, if it has to be larger, you just dig a little deeper? I mean, you have the ability to scale this thing is what you're saying. Yeah, we have enough space to do what needs to be done. It's just we have to do the exact calculations based upon this plan to know what we have to do. Okay. Other questions? Ms. Mundy? There was some mention of, and this may be for Tom, I'm not sure, there was some mention of some further flooding on down the way. Would not this, with its capacity there and possibly slowing things down because of the storage here, help with that flooding further down? Yeah, we feel it would. Yeah. it could have designed to address that problem downstream, which the stormwater manuals do have a provision for that to be considered. Yeah. Okay. I thought so. Tom, if I may, I was going to reserve it for later, but since you're at the podium, what they're proposing as far as changing the language on number 14, prior to issuance of certification or issuance of building permits. Would that be acceptable to staff? Of course, they have one year from your approval to certify the plan. So certainly that provides a lengthy time period to review the engineering design and the stormwater issues. So was that a yes? I think yes. It would be acceptable if you all find it acceptable. Okay. All right. Thank you. Since you were at the podium, I thought I'd go on and ask. Others that would like to speak in regards to this plan? Yes, come forward. Give us your name, address. I'm Anthony McIntyre, and I have multiple addresses, 505 Reed Lane, for one. In general, I think it's a relatively good plan. It's been modified a good bit, and I kind of like the way it is. I'm not opposed to the development. If I might show you something. Hello? Okay. I own this property right here. I didn't oppose the variance here to allow this building to be closer. I like the plan generally. What I would like to ask you to consider is since there's been a street closure right through here, there are four streets currently. This one takes it down to three streets up there. Now, these are not streets. They're more like little alleys. They're very restricted. So at the same time, they're getting more vehicular traffic. They're also getting more pedestrian traffic. Now, there are more pedestrians killed by cars than there are people who die in fires in this country. Okay, now we've got a lot of consideration to fire access. What about the pedestrians? I would suggest that just a sidewalk along through there, and if Mr. Anderson wants to put the fence like four feet over, he could still contain the development and have pedestrian access. That would simply take off some of the people walking from all over here, back and forth, take them off of the narrow streets without sidewalks, and make the neighborhood safer. It would be a diminimum, I mean, the room is there, and a lot of this is already paved with sidewalks. So it's a de minimis request, really, for the development. So that's the first item. The second item, if you could cue up my pictures. This is the corner of Transcript and Press in 1993. And I don't know if you can see it very well, but it is under the building there got about three and a half feet of water. You can see the roofs of flooded cars over next to the building. You want to put the other picture? That is press going towards transcript. You can't really see transcript. Now, this is, and then this has happened again, too. It happened again in 2006, October 2006. We got about 18 inches to 2 feet of water in that building and a whole bunch of flooded cars. We've had flooded cars. The cars will flood before the buildings do, cars on the street and in the parking lots. The point is this is the water that all flows through that 18-inch pipe under the railroad tracks, which form an effective—the railroad track is a dam, in essence. So the idea that this detention basin should be calculated solely on the volume of what comes through that 18-inch pipe strikes me as if that's what you approve, then you're locking in a failed hydraulic system so that it can't be fixed going forward. We know that that pipe is inadequate. It's obvious. It's flooded many times. UK is adding increased levels of impervious surfaces. Okay? So it's getting worse all the time. Can we try to future-proof this at least a little bit? It's unfair to ask the developer to take care of everything in town. I understand that. I'm not asking that. But can we specify maybe something a little bit bigger than 18 inches? or else a study that includes, you know, what-if scenarios for upstream as well as downstream. And there's some other people who'd like to speak on this issue too, so I won't belabor it, and I'll get out of here. But it's the stormwater issues here. If you've ever lived through a flood and you've ever had to clean up one of these buildings or you've ever seen a manhole cover pop up on a jet of water, and this is after the manhole cover was paved over, okay, right up. It's a little scary. It's not just an abstract engineering calculation, okay, and this affects people's lives. I mean, most of these cars don't have full coverage, and they just lost their cars. So anyway, thank you very much, and I will. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre. Any questions for Mr. McIntyre? Not at this time. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm David Burke. I'm here to speak on behalf of my grandmother, Norma Walton, that owns the property that Mr. McIntyre just showed the pictures of. And I just, I can't say it as well as him, but I just wanted to touch on the fact that we still to this day have many problems with flooding of our parking lot and the street at Press Avenue. All it takes is a moderate 10, 15 minutes of rain, and we have a foot of water not only in our parking lot, but on Press Avenue as well. I actually just got done a few weeks ago shop vaccing three inches of water out of a girl's car that unfortunately parked there when we had a flash flood from just a little bit of rain. So my concern is, you know, that we don't do anything to make the problem worse or in the future as more developments grow that we there's a solution. So that is my concern. Thank you, Mr. Burke. Others? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is John Billings. I'm with the Billings Law Firm, and I'm here speaking also on behalf of Norma Walton, who's elderly and ill and unable to be here personally. I'm also representing Tim Chesney and Robert Hodge. could you put actually could you put Mr. Martin's aerial photo back up first I wanted to thank you very much basically they own property across the railroad tracks in the eastern side of the railroad tracks in this area where they've talked about the flooding and admittedly this is not an area where the development sits but let me see if I can does this great the Mr. Martin expressed concern about note 24 in the storm water management study and down here with the storm sewer plan it talks about the existing 18 inch pipe and our concern is really the same as Mr. McIntyre's that at some point in the future there may be a need to increase the size of that pipe running underneath the railroad tracks. And we would simply ask that this basin, the studies for the basin and how big it needs to be, take that into consideration so that the property owners on the eastern side of the railroad track don't have their property locked in from further development and really locked into a situation even at the present that's very difficult for them. And we just ask that that be a requirement of the hydraulic study that's done, that they consider how big that drainage pipe that's currently 18 inches, that tries a pointer here, where the blue runs underneath, how big that pipe really should be to protect the property owners on the eastern side of the railroad tracks, and that their retention basin be adequate to support that. And I'd also like to say a word about the pedestrian access. Mr. McIntyre's suggestion sounds very reasonable. Mr. The concern is that as this area gets development, development is closed in, and there may be future development as the U.K. grows, that bike and pedestrians will be pushed further out towards Harrisburg Road and have a situation somewhat like the East End with a small area development situation. So this, you know, a sidewalk like Mr. McIntyre is suggesting would help alleviate that type of problem. The comprehensive plan has numerous comments about the importance of bike and pedestrian connectivity and accessibility. And this would, to require that type of a sidewalk or any, that wasn't a specific requirement of my clients, but I think that would certainly work. But that should be taken into consideration in approving this plan. I'd be glad to answer any questions if you have them. Questions for Mr. Billings? Not at this time. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Others that would like to speak? I think there might be one. Ms. Daly? I think it's your turn. Thank you so much. I'm Jenny Daly. I live at 136 Burley Avenue. I live in the block adjacent to this development. I'm asking you to postpone or not approve this development plan today as there are too many outstanding unknowns that could dramatically alter a real final development plan I have questions about the parking allocations it seems like there's some fuzzy math going on also the plan for the Pedway has not been finalized and could possibly be moved therefore altering the location of the buildings in the final development plan But my biggest concern is with the lack of a plan for handling stormwater, if you'll put up that first picture. Stormwater management on this site is a serious issue, as you're becoming aware of. There is an active stream that runs through the center of this development. This stream drains much of UK's south campus from KET in the stadium all the way over to the tracks, as you've been hearing about. The water at this point, once it goes under the tracks, becomes an actual blue-lined stream known as Vaughn's Branch and is a significant tributary in the Wolf Run watershed. And as a blue-lined stream, it is subject, I believe, if I'm reading the regulations right, to both Kentucky water quality, water management issues, EPA, and Army Corps of Engineers regulations. This is what the stream looks like on a normal day. And the back part is where the culvert is, and then this is coming out towards Simpson. Number two, this is what this area looks like in a heavy rain. Once again, the culvert is in the back of the picture, and you can see the drain that goes under Simpson right there. Picture number three, this is another view of the flooding, and you can see how it goes off to the side towards the current apartment complex that's there. If you'll put up picture number four. The current topography of the surrounding development uses these little retention valleys or gulches to manage the stormwater, and this is further down Simpson. And you can kind of see, it's not an attractive picture here because it's during winter, but this is really like these little gulch greenways during the year. If you'll put up picture five. This is another view, and this is right adjacent to this area that I showed you that was flooded. But you can see this is a well that holds the water. And if you'll put up the final picture. Oh, I don't know if you can see very well on this. The blue line stream is in the bottom right corner where the little Google icon is. Yes, thank you. And you can see it better on Mr. Martin's map how many of these little retention gulches there are all around this development that was done prior. This type of stormwater management reflects current best practices as put forth by the EPA and by LFUCG's own stormwater manual. And guess what? It works. It works great. When it's not raining, the students are out there, they walk their dogs in these areas, they sit around, hang out, throw frisbee. When it's raining, of course, they're not outside. Although we don't know what the final stormwater management plan is for this proposed development, it appears on the drawing to enlist underground detainment tanks, and that is what we've been talking about today. Underground detainment tanks do not, although they're allowable, do not reflect current best practices for stormwater management. And until the stormwater study is submitted and reviewed by LFUCG engineering staff, which according to Note 24 should have already happened, we don't know really what kind of impact this is going to have on the final development plan for this site. And I understand, according to what Mr. Murphy was saying, they don't want to go through this process twice. But this is, as Mr. Martin pointed out, an unusual and exceptional case. And I'm sorry, but maybe you have to go through it twice to get it right. That is just what happens when you try to build in an exceptional situation. The incomplete nature of the stormwater management alone is so significant to render this development plan preliminary and not final. This large development will have a huge impact on my small neighborhood, so I'm only asking that it be the best that it can be. I think a development reflecting design excellence and proper stormwater management is something we all, the city, the developer, and the people who live in the neighborhood, it's something we all want. So please help guide this development in the right direction by not approving the plan until it is more properly developed and vetted by our water quality staff. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Daly? No? Thank you. Any others that would like to speak? Mr. Murphy, move to rebuttal. Thank you very much. Juan, there's two items I wanted to discuss. The one is the pedestrian connectivity. And Dennis' development through here, as you all know, he owns other property in this area. He has been installing sidewalks on streets which did not have sidewalks before. So he has been adding to the connectivity in this area down here and we are not in favor of having walkways through backyards. We think that's a bad practice. We think going down the street this here, here's the street, is the best way to do it. And we think that is made easier through some of Dennis's other developments and some of this development in this area. Also, as I'll point out, we have condition number six on our conditions of approval, which is the bike and pedestrian planners' approval of bike trails and pedestrian facilities. So we do have to get their sign-off before we are approved, but I think we'll have, even if there are no changes made in this plan, I think we'll have better pedestrian connectivity after this is built than there is right now. On the stormwater, I want to mention a couple things. One is that we haven't been sitting back and just doing nothing on this. We have consulted with the Corps of Engineers, which, as you all know, is in charge of all changes in waters and development such as this. And we have gotten the approval of the Corps of Engineers on December 13, 2013. and I'll hand out some copies of that. I'd like to put one in the record where they approve the use of the underground storage vaults in replacement of the existing stormwater basin, which is there right now. The pictures which Ms. Daly showed you of our basin with a lot of water in it, that's the way it's supposed to work. It's supposed to collect that water there. That is not a flooding situation. It's a situation in which the basin is functioning as it's supposed to. and we went to the Corps of Engineers to get approval for replacing that with the underground vault system. They have approved that. And so I'd like to enter that into the record that the Corps of Engineers had approved this. Now, as they mentioned in their letter, there's lots of other requirements they have to meet. They don't, they're very careful to enumerate that they're not relieving us of any other burdens, but they have given us the approval to put this existing basin, which is located in this area, in the underground system. A lot of the discussion was flooding situations, I guess, which occurred over on the other side of the railroad tracks. And I know some of the pictures were mentioned to be 1993. As you all know, in the last 21 years, UK has bought up a lot of those properties. and it's our understanding that as they have bought up some of those and done projects back here, they have themselves have done stormwater retention mitigation on their property. So it's not the same situation as it was in 1993 or even six years ago. If you've looked at UK's master plan, I think the master plan of UK calls for them to come up to the railroad tracks and eventually buy up all this property on the east side of the tracks. in the area between South Limestone Street and the railroad tracks. I know there are a number of private residences there still, but UK owns a lot of that, and UK has been taking care of some of those stormwater problems. I'm not saying that they're all gone away. UK has probably done it, but done something to improve the stormwater situation over there. I want to mention this pipe under the railroad tracks. I think it was mentioned by one person that it's 18 inches. I apologize. I was shuttling back and forth to the back while the other people were up here, but I was checking with our engineer, Mike Kraft, who checked with our engineer, Steve Garland, who reported that today, as this pipe is, this is what Steve Garland called a 54-inch equivalent pipe under the railroad tracks. It's not 18 inches. it's a 54 equivalent pipe. And what that means is it's not a circular pipe, it's an arched pipe, but it has the equivalence of a 54 inch circular pipe under there, which is what the size which is needed under here. We will obviously have to submit our figures to the staff to obtain approval from both engineering and the Division of Water Quality here in Lexington. And obviously we'll have to talk to them, but the problems that were shown, I want to point out also, are upstream from us. They're not downstream from us. So we are not going to be, even if you feel that the pictures you saw from 1993 are still valid today, 21 years later, we are not going to be contributing to water problems on the other side of the railroad tracks. And that's because the water flows our way. It doesn't flow from us across the railroad tracks. So, again, we feel it's the prudent thing to do. It's what we assumed would be done when the notes were put on is that we would do a water study, and we will do a water study. It says at time of final development plan, we felt that meant that it would be done in the normal procedure where we get our development plan approved. Then we submit all these plans to the Division of Engineering, Division of Water Quality. For their approval, we have to meet their approval. And guess what? If we don't meet their approval, guess where we're coming back to? You all right here. So if there's something that cannot be resolved, it would come back to you all. We don't anticipate that at all because we feel we're going to do a study and we know we're going to meet all those requirements. But we don't think there's any problem with treating us the same way all other developments are done, except maybe with us we're going to have to submit our stormwater plan prior to certification, maybe rather than prior to a building permit, so we might do it a little earlier. but we think there's a reason that that procedure is followed and that's because it makes sense. It lets us know where our buildings are. Then once we know where those buildings are, we can do our calculations and to determine what we need to store in these underground vaults. We think we have a very good plan and we'd ask for your approval with the one modification to note 14, which I mentioned, which would be resolve compliance with note 24 on approved plan prior to either certification or granting of a building permit. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Murphy? No. I got one. Yes, sir. And I don't really know who this should go to, but is there any discussion out there about this 54-inch pipe even being replaced at any point at this time? Not the staff's aware of Mr. Berkley. Okay. Any, excuse me. Ms. Mundy, you've got a question? Probably just a statement. I would think that would be up to the railroad. That's on there right-of-way. It would be there under lay of the railroad, I would think. I don't know. As far as opposition, someone that would like to speak as far as rebuttal? Any rebuttal comments? I have a little bit of a concern that the plat reflects an 18-inch pipe, and today we're told it's a 54-inch equivalent. And whether it's 18 or 54, and the pictures were 93, Ms. Walton's grandson said they still have flooding problems. And candidly, I'm not aware of any discussions, and we've talked and nobody else is aware of any discussions about replacing that pipe, to be candid. But we think it's something that should be considered at some point, and probably the sooner the better. If you build this retention basin at a certain size, that will make the replacement of it that much less likely. That's our concern, and it locks it in and keeps it from being considered in the future. Shouldn't maybe – Hold on, let him finish, Mr. Berkeley. Oh, okay. I was finished. Okay. All right. Thank you. Do you have a specific question for Mr. Bellings? I don't think it's necessarily to him, but it's, from what I remember of that area, there's, there's a, I guess, a retention area on the one side, and that's on UK property. That is correct. So it would seem to me that, and I don't think we have really a whole lot of jurisdiction over that, but it would seem to me that they're the ones that have control of that. I don't know. I don't think you have much jurisdiction over that either. But in the event that my client should be able to get something done to alleviate the flooding, again, allowing this basin at a size that only considers the current pipe without considering what it needs to be locks them in. That's our concern. Thank you, Mr. Mark. My only follow-up is how do you determine what it needs to be? Because you don't know what's going to be in the future is the problem. I think with the hydraulic study, the same way they would do for the downstream issues that they're going to study. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Staff, rebuttal? No rebuttal? Let me ask a question. Mr. Martin, do you have any clarification as to this pipe? I thought in prior discussions, I'd heard prior discussions prior to today that that was like a 50-inch pipe. Do you have any clarification as to what size pipe that is? We have no direct knowledge of that pipe, no sir, just what. You have heard from the applicant's engineer. Okay. All right, then. No rebuttal, then? No closing statements? Thank you. I'll go to any specific questions. Mr. Craven, wait a second, Mr. Cravens has rung in. I actually used the little screen. He did for a change. this is for mr martin i guess mr murphy spoke of uk buying properties and redoing the retention basins and so forth over there if one of those properties came in on that side wouldn't they have some responsibility not to send more through that pipe than currently is going through it i think yes they have responsibility, but of course, UK being UK, a state entity, they don't have to address our local standards. I think they are subject to state and federal standards. They've got a whole engineering department over there. I guess they could figure it out. But it looks like to me, whoever developed anything on the other side, whether it's UK or somebody, I mean, our engineers are going to be looking at that, that they don't try to run more water through that pipe than it's currently running through it. I mean, I guess that could work both ways. It could. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? Yes, for Tom. Thank you. We are into safe by design. What's your feeling about the sidewalk, about changing it to make it more accessible for pedestrians? I would agree that the development will function for pedestrians within the development. I believe there is right of way in the area that some of it has been improved and there are areas that could use improvement and use sidewalks. Our pedestrian planner will certainly review this plan to try to ensure better connections. the applicant isn't correct in that safe by design does not encourage pedestrian activity and other activities in areas where it's not as open to the public like backyards and that sort of thing. There are some issues with that. Yes, ma'am. Other questions? If there's no other questions, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion from commission members. and or motion when you're ready. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm going to make a motion to approve this DP 2014-64, the revised recommendation, and changing number 14 to resolve prior to certification. I see no reason to change the whole procedure. Okay. We do have a motion for approval of DP 2014-64 and seconded. and if I understood it right, it's with the 15 conditions, changing number 14 to resolve compliance with note 24 on approved plan prior to certification. Did we only need it on 14 or 15 too? It's already listed on 15 on the revised condition. Well, it says building permit, not prior to certification. 15 is concerned with the sanitary sewer. Right. So we do have a motion, and it has been seconded. Any discussion? Let me say this before a vote. One, I appreciate everyone coming and expressing their concerns. It really seems like stormwater is the main issue. and in clarification the way this is being presented, the motion and is read, nothing can be done until certification. They will have to present a stormwater plan, designs that meet in our engineering department. If not, they can't go forward. It's that simple. But like I said, I do appreciate everyone coming today. If there's no other discussion or questions, I'll call for a vote at this time. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks, for coming. Thank you, everyone. We will move on. I have myself on the five. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Page 5, Lynn Grove edition, DP 2014-70. At the top of the page, you do have a revision that's on a bright yellow, not canary yellow sheet. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are moving to the top of page 5, DP 2014-70, Lynn Grove edition. We are still in Lynn Grove, as was the last plan, was partially in the old Lynn Grove subdivision. I think platted somewhere around 1929 or so. We have provided to you revised conditions on this particular final development plan. This is the plan that you see before you today on the final development plan. You recently approved a zone change on this property to R4. Here's Burley Avenue, which you've heard some discussion already today. Burley does head on down towards the previous development. Here is Stillwell Avenue in this location. So you have your frontages here and here. This is, in essence, a townhouse development. There are 14 units. Now, you can see 14 units aren't represented in this on the plan graphically, but these three units have units above. That's kind of what's a unique feature of this proposal in this townhouse. development and why they in fact refer to it as condos in that there are three upstairs independent units in this location. You have access here back into the parking area which will have one-way circulation with diagonal parking. The dumpsters in this location that will serve the property. You can see the green and the buffer and then the open space and frontage areas here on Stillwell and Burley. You may recall that when you approved this zone change, you also approved four variances, I believe, that affected the building line and affected the perimeter landscaping on this property. This plan now reflects those variances. The original submittal had a lot of conditions on it, required a lot of cleanup. up. This is actually the second revision that staff received that you see before you today that has addressed many of those conditions. And you can see on your handout that, again, we started out with 29 conditions when this plan was originally submitted. We're happy to say you're down to 13. And they have cleaned it up very nicely. We have our standard sign-offs on a final development plan that you can see the first the first 10 that always impact final development plans to ensure that the development will meet our standards and requirements. We have a couple of others. They need to clarify their lot coverage and floor area. That again is is something that just is necessary on the plan. The lot coverage is clear to staff but the FAR it's because these upper units of square footage. They need to break those out cleanly for us on the plan. We have, they need to correct the plan title. The plan title is what your staff calls it, as you can see on your handout. This is Lynn Grove edition, Lysake 217. The final item is denote compliance with the infill design requirements per 15-7A and B. We are in the infill and redevelopment area. This is a townhouse style development. Those infill standards address building details and some site details. You can see on the plan, actually, they have addressed some of those with their setbacks and the way they varied it. There are very specific design criteria in our infill and redevelopment areas. They are intended to ensure compatibility with surrounding development, particularly single family. So when you have a multi-family, as this actually is, this is a group residential project, and you want it to reflect the single family home characteristics in the area, which they are doing with the townhouses, with the setbacks. Those designs get into detail like they're required a 412 pitch roof. Obviously you can't graphically show this in this dimension. There is a height limit on any outside lights, for instance. So those are the items that they'll have to denote prior to this plan being certified. Those can be denoted verbally as notes on the plan, not verbally, pardon me, as notes on the plan that would be sure that then when they submit building plans, they will add those types of components. I mean, we're talking about opacity, amount of glass, for instance, that is allowed in the infill and redevelopment area. Again, with the intent to ensure compatibility with new development, with existing development, and try to avoid monolithic structures and structures that just seem out of place in these neighborhoods. We believe that this plan currently is in substantial compliance with that. We just feel like a little additional detail would be necessary. Hence, we have item 13 on your revised staff recommendations. I would briefly, in case, again, it's 14 units with associated parking. There's about 45 parking spaces on the site. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I will say I like 13 as compared to 29 a whole lot better. Thank you very much. So applicant. Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Brandon Shelley. I'm with Abby Jones Consulting. We are representing Burley Partners. I am happy to see that we've gone down to 13 comments. I know a couple weeks ago in the tech committee meeting seeing 29 was a little overwhelming. We have been very active going through and addressing these comments. I know this week that our architect met with Mr. Martin specifically to go through item 13, and so we're actively working to go through those last things to include on our plans. We are kind of talking about the last development plan. We are downstream from that plan, but we have been working with engineering as far as our stormwater runoff. We have submitted an analysis plan to them as well. They've come back with one item. We are proposing one curb inlet right now. They would like us to look at a second inlet to tie into the existing storm sewer and possibly adding some pervious pavement to have some detention because we have been hearing about some flooding issues into Vaughan's branch. But we are actively working on our construction plans right now too with engineering because we have a developer that's really chomping at the bit to get ready to go with this. So I thank you for the consideration for approval. Any questions? Thank you. Any questions, Mr. Shelley? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any others that in the audience would like to speak? Yes, ma'am. I'll be very brief. I'm Jenny Daly. I live at 136 Burley Avenue. I live about two blocks north. you know, east, up the street from this development. And I would like to speak in favor of approval for this. This developer and Abby usually work in a different line of construction, and this is one of their first small area construction plans like this. They've been great to work with. They've met with the neighborhood. They listen to our concerns. This is a modification from the original plan they started with, and they are very good to work with and have been throughout this process and listen to what we want and need in the neighborhood, and I'm very excited. I'm, like, waiting for them to break ground on this as well, so I hope that you will support this plan. Thank you, Ms. Daly. Others that would like to speak? If not, questions from the commission? No, Mr. Martin, you're hiding as if you may have something else. No? Mr. just called me up several times. You wanted to be close. I understand. Thank you. If there's no further questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2014-70, the Lynn Grove edition, lots 8 through 17, with the staff recommendations of 13 conditions. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP 2014-70 Lynn Grove editions with 13 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, folks. Next on the agenda, it's at the bottom of page 5, DP 2014-72, Coons Property Track 1. It's at 4251 Sarin Drive. You do have revisions that are on a canary yellow sheet that is before you. Thank you. Page 5, item D, DP 2014-72, the Coons property, tract 1. We are moving a considerable distance from where we have been on the last two plans in our community. We are on the outside of Manowar on Sarin Drive, which, of course, is near the Tates Creek Center, and that area in this direction, and in Sarin Drive, pardon me, it's in this direction. And then Sarin Drive, of course, continues on out in this and eventually, of course, is now connected, as it should be, to Tate's Creek. Here is Chas Drive in this. This is a parcel that has been here for a considerable amount of time. You can see it's somewhat of an odd shape. And here is the creek, West Hitman Creek in this area. We have shown you some areas of floodplain. Here is the floodplain setback on this property. They are proposing an assisted living with a memory care component on this property, as you can see here. There will be a walkout ground floor in the rear. This is related to the topography, of course, as this site drops down towards the creek in this location. There are 89 total units. Their parking is shown here along the front in the loop drive here, dumpster in this location. Two access points. One is lined up here with Chas Drive. The second one at this location to provide access into the site. There was considerable review of this. They have submitted this revision. And you have your nice, bright, pretty yellow, the Canary yellow handout with 14 conditions, of which, again, the first are all standard conditions of approval that are necessary on a final development plan. They need to add a couple little cleanup conditions. They need to add their dimensions. We like that so we can verify their math to ensure that their lot coverage and FAR meet the requirements of the zone, as well as the canopy height. This is, again, necessary to know that our emergency vehicles or even solid waste vehicles, hopefully that's unlikely, but they have to be able to move under the canopy. The compliance with Article 21-4E that you see is merely the applicant has to pay for reproducibles under our ordinance that comes back to staff for our filing and for distribution to the appropriate entities. and then denote access to proposed open space and park on the plan. You can see they're proposing a large open space and park area. And obviously, this certainly is a nice amenity for development such as this. There is public right-of-way. There are sidewalks. There has been some discussion with the applicant that they might want to provide an interior trail so that residents and their guests and perhaps hopefully even employees could enjoy this open area and this park area. So if they intend to do that, we would certainly want that denoted on the plan. You can see this area right in here. This is emergency access that they have added to this plan at the request of our fire department folks. and with that, your staff is recommending approval of this plan and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Apparently not. Thank you. Appleton, anything to add? Hi, my name is Kevin Rich, Rich Design Studios. I'm here on behalf of the owner-developer Carl Schneider with Continental Real Estate and Mike Wagner with the Leo Brown Group. And we've read the conditions, the updated conditions, and agree to those and are available for questions. Questions for Mr. Rich? Ms. Plumlee? Do you go along with the plan to put an interior trail around the back, as Tom mentioned? Yes, ma'am. We're looking at that. There's considerable vegetation back there, So we want to make sure that any trail system we put is sensitive to that and the topography. But, yes, that is something we're looking at. Thank you. Any other questions? We'll follow up with you as well. I appreciate 14 conditions as opposed to 22. Thank you very much. Anything else from commission members? Should I ask anyone else in the audience which should speak on this plan? If not, any other questions? If no questions, I'll close this part and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move approval of DP 2014-72 Coons Property, Track 1, with the 14 conditions as noted by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. motion is for approval of dp 2014-72 coons property with 14 revised conditions if there's no further discussion please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes thank you thank you folks thank you very much next on the agenda is dp 2014-73 Patch and Wilkes Townhomes. It's on page 6. You do have revisions on a salmon sheet of paper before you. While they're standing and setting up, I'll ask for a motion on the release and call of bonds. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Motion's been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds. memorandum dated September 11, 2014. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. We are going to head out Winchester Road now, heading out close towards 75. We're in Patch and Wilkes. We have Patch and Wilkes Drive. Across the street is the Tuscany area, and we have apartments. Now we're coming in for a layout for townhomes on the north side of Winchester Road. Like you said, there's a salmon color sheet. They came in with a revision, and they did some cleanup, cleaned up a couple of conditions, but we still have our standard conditions. The first 11 conditions, including water quality's approval of the capacity. We have addition of required preliminary subdivision information. There are a few things that need to be brought forward on that. Resolved timing of access easement connection to adjoining property. Currently, you have one way in, and then it comes out here and it stubs. At the time, that property has not been in for development. So it's my understanding that the applicant has been working with the fire department about having a second access point into the property. So we believe that that helps meet their requirements. Resolve intersection alignment with the proposed good pasture way. My understanding is they are also working with traffic engineering, and that is a condition that they need to make that work because it does not correctly line up. With that, Bill's handed out a sheet for setbacks, which we believe that they have resolved the setback pavement from the drive aisles to the property edge of the drive, from the edge of the driveway to the property line. So they are now increasing that to seven feet. So we believe that's been met, and that's why we've been able to remove that from the conditions. That was our discussion item. Is there any other questions? Any questions from Ms. Galt? Apparently not. Thank you. Mr. Barrett? Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. Cheryl summarized the conditions that we're agreeable to and asked for approval. Thank you, sir. Any questions? Not at this time. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, if there's no questions from the commission, I'll close this part and open it up for discussion and or a motion. Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chair, I make a recommendation of approval of DP 2014-73 with the 14 noted conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. DP 2014-73 Patch and Wilkes Townhomes with the revised 14 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. I may not be remiss. Thank you for taking it from 19 to 14. I believe next on the plan is on page 8. It's listed as a minor plan. DP 2013-87, Todd's Trace Apartments, Pennington Place apartment at 215 Codell Drive. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. As you noted, this is DP 2013-87 Todd's Trace Apartments, property located at, we have 300 Quentin Court. I'll explain that here for you. The property, of course, is bordered by Codale Drive, Quentin Court. We have Richmond Road down here and East New Circle running above it. French Quarter just off the site here. As noted, this was a minor as it was originally submitted. And the purpose for that was to revise the sidewalk layout and adjust entrance number two, which is right here. They wanted to adjust that entrance a little bit. During the course of the review, the applicant expressed a desire to add an entrance to Quentin Court, which, of course, then moves it out of being a minor, and your staff does not have the authority to approve the entrance, which is being brought to you today. The entrance is a manual gate. It will be locked. However, fire will have access to it if necessary. And on that, traffic and fire both have looked at this and approved to the location and signed off on it. You would have any questions or comments about it? Any questions? Let me ask this. You said to add, it's my understanding this has already been built. Yes, sir, it has. So we're kind of somebody got the cart before the horse? Yeah, I believe it was a little miscommunication. But the client, or app, excuse me, I'm sorry, has expressed a desire that you all see it and realize that they're not, you know. Thank you. Applicant, anything to add? Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Scott Southall. I represent CDP and the applicant in this application. I have nothing to add, and I'm just here in case you have questions. Okay. Any questions? No? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Mr. Chairman, before you vote, I would just remind the commission this is one of the most rare types of plans. There are no conditions I recommended with your approval of this plan. I would ask something, but I won't. At any rate, if there's no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for, I guess it would be a re-approval since this is a minor change. Approval. Approval, okay, for DP 2013-87 Todd's Trace Apartments with no conditions. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2013-87 Todd's Trace Apartments. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. actually it was listed as a minor plan but I think in all actuality because it came to us it had to be it was no longer a minor plan that's the reason it needed our approval we did do the performance of bonds thank you sir I'm sorry any other commission items staff items audience items next meeting will be next week for a work session right here at 1.30. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. And a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.