# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - February 12, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 12, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3585 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3585?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-02-12 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 10,650 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 February 12, 2015, 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 consideration of five agenda items. The Commission took six motions and votes during the session and heard one public comment. Of the five agenda items considered, three were approved and two were postponed. The Consent Agenda comprising six items was approved. The Commission also approved the CHEVY CHASE SHOPPES project and the CHANCELLOR SUBDIVISION (THE SPRINGS) (PARCEL 3) (AMD). Two items—LONG VALLEY FARM, KY, INC., UNIT 2-B (AMD) and RICHARDSON PROPERTY (AMD)—were postponed for further consideration at a future meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, Bill Wilson, Chris King, Bill Sallee, Barbara Rackers, Tom Martin, Cheryl Gallt, Kelly Hunter, Dave Jarman, Denice Bullock, Hillard Newman, Casey Kaucher, Tim Queary, Greg Lengal, Joshua Thiel, Tracy Jones, and Andrea Brown. **Absent:** David Drake and Frank Penn. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions **Postponement of PLAN 2014-101F: Long Valley Farm, KY, Inc., Unit 2-B (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:08:50] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The motion to postpone this item to March 12, 2015 passed by voice vote. All eight members present voted in favor: Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, and Bill Wilson. **Postponement of DP 2015-6: Richardson Property (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:09:53] Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Joseph Smith. The motion to postpone this item to February 25, 2015 passed by voice vote with all eight members voting in favor. **Approval of Consent Agenda Items** [timestamp: 00:13:19] Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Joseph Smith. The motion to approve Consent Agenda items as recommended by the Subdivision Committee passed by voice vote with all eight members voting in favor. **Approval of Bond Release and Call** [timestamp: 00:14:20] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Bill Wilson. The motion to approve the release and call of bonds as detailed in a memorandum dated February 12, 2015 passed by voice vote with all eight members voting in favor. **Approval of DP 2015-5: Chevy Chase Shoppes** [timestamp: 00:43:27] Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion to approve DP 2015-5 with revised conditions and approval of waiver passed by voice vote. Seven members voted in favor: Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Patrick Brewer, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, and Bill Wilson. Will Berkley abstained from the vote. The approval includes 17 conditions addressing engineering, traffic, landscaping, fire safety, parking, and other site plan requirements. **Approval of DP 2015-7: Chancellor Subdivision (The Springs) (Parcel 3) (AMD)** [timestamp: 01:24:05] Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion to approve DP 2015-7 with revised conditions passed by voice vote. Seven members voted in favor: Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Will Berkley, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, and Bill Wilson. Patrick Brewer abstained from the vote. The approval includes six conditions addressing building height, parking lot modifications, plan notes, and landscape buffer documentation. ## Public Comment Rosa Brown addressed the board regarding traffic and parking concerns affecting Marquis Avenue and McCaw's Alley [timestamp: 00:29:39]. Brown raised several specific issues: - **Traffic congestion**: She expressed concerns about traffic congestion in the area, particularly related to delivery truck activity. - **Parking availability**: Brown questioned the adequacy of parking availability on Marquis Avenue, noting that the area is currently used by both Kroger employees and UK students. - **Public parking maintenance**: She asked for clarification about who would be responsible for maintaining public parking in the area going forward. - **Metering questions**: Brown inquired whether any public parking would be metered. ## Contested Items **Landscape buffers for Chancellor Subdivision** A heated discussion arose regarding the landscaping requirements for the Chancellor Subdivision. The primary disagreement centered on whether the applicant's existing landscaping met or exceeded the standards outlined in Article 18, and whether additional enforceable buffers should be included on the development plan. Staff members emphasized the importance of establishing clear, enforceable buffer requirements to facilitate future enforcement and ensure compliance with municipal standards. The applicant, conversely, argued that their completed landscaping work already exceeded the Article 18 requirements and advocated for flexibility in determining final planting specifications rather than having rigid mandates imposed on the development plan. The core tension reflected differing priorities: staff sought certainty and enforceability through documented requirements, while the applicant preferred discretion in their approach to landscaping implementation. ## LONG VALLEY FARM, KY, INC., UNIT 2-B (AMD) **Plan 2014-101F** [timestamp: 00:08:50] The Planning Commission discussed the Long Valley Farm, KY, Inc., Unit 2-B amendment application. Key speakers included Tom Martin, Mike Cravens, and Carolyn Richardson. The Commission postponed this item due to a procedural requirement not being met. Specifically, the applicant failed to post a required sign on the property as mandated by Article 6-4(j)(6) of the Land Subdivision Regulations. This posting is a necessary step in the application process. The applicant requested a one-month postponement to allow time to comply with the signage requirement. The Commission approved this postponement, with the item scheduled to return for consideration on March 12, 2015. **Outcome:** Postponed to March 12, 2015 ## RICHARDSON PROPERTY (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2015-6 **Type:** Discussion The Planning Commission addressed the Richardson Property amendment during this meeting. [timestamp: 00:09:53] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Tom Martin, Carolyn Plumlee, and Joseph Smith. **Summary** The Planning Commission postponed consideration of this item. The primary reason for the postponement was a lack of graphic clarity regarding the proposed new condominium building. The applicant requested a two-week postponement to allow time to address these concerns. **Outcome** The item was postponed to February 25, 2015. ## Consent Agenda: 6 Items [timestamp: 00:13:19] The Commission approved six items on the consent agenda. The items included conditional approvals for final subdivision and development plans, as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. Key speakers on this agenda item were Bill Sallee, Carolyn Plumlee, and Joseph Smith. No discussion was requested by any Commission member or audience member regarding the consent agenda items. The items were approved without debate or concerns being raised. **Outcome:** All six items on the consent agenda were approved. ## CHEVY CHASE SHOPPES The Commission reviewed and approved the revised development plan for Chevy Chase Shoppes (DP 2015-5) [timestamp: 00:43:27]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Tom Martin, Tony Barrett, and Rosa Brown. **Approval and Conditions** The Commission approved the revised development plan with conditions. The approval included a waiver to allow reverse-angle parking at the site. Additionally, the Commission approved a waiver to permit sidewalk extension beyond the right-of-way on Marquis Avenue. **Off-Site Parking Documentation** The applicant requested a modification to the timing of off-site parking documentation requirements. Specifically, the applicant requested that off-site parking documentation be tied to building permits rather than plan certification. This change would delay when the parking documentation would need to be submitted and verified. **Outcome** The revised development plan for Chevy Chase Shoppes was approved with the conditions and waivers noted above. ## CHANCELLOR SUBDIVISION (THE SPRINGS) (PARCEL 3) (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2015-7 The Commission reviewed and approved an amended development plan for Chancellor Subdivision (Parcel 3) during this agenda item [timestamp: 01:24:05]. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Tom Martin, Matt Carter, and Mr. Johnson participated in the discussion of this development plan amendment. **Project Details** The amended development plan included revised conditions with enhanced landscape buffers that exceed the requirements outlined in Article 18. The applicant demonstrated extensive pre-construction landscaping efforts and documented community engagement activities related to the project. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended that a formal note be added to the plan to ensure future enforceability of the landscaping and other conditions outlined in the amendment. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amended development plan for Chancellor Subdivision (Parcel 3) with the revised conditions and enhanced landscape buffer requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone PLAN 2014-101F: LONG VALLEY FARM, KY, INC., UNIT 2-B (AMD) to March 12, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone DP 2015-6: RICHARDSON PROPERTY (AMD) to February 25, 2015 - **Motion** — passed: Approve Consent Agenda items as recommended by Subdivision Committee - **Motion** — passed: Approve release and call of bonds as detailed in memorandum dated February 12, 2015 - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2015-5: CHEVY CHASE SHOPPES with revised conditions and approval of waiver - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2015-7: CHANCELLOR SUBDIVISION (THE SPRINGS) (PARCEL 3) (AMD) with revised conditions --- ## Full transcript You keep calling me on the telephone You say you're all alone All I need, all I need, all I need Baby, baby, baby Oh, baby, I was not sure But now since I need you, I'm sorry Oh, baby, I tell you that I love you. I tell you that I love you. Oh, I want you back. I want you back. Oh, I want you back. Lazy yellow moon coming up to tonight Shining through the trees Crickets are singing and lightning bugs Are floating on the breeze Better get ready Across the field where the creek turns back by the host on the road. I'm gonna take you to a special place that nobody knows. Baby, get ready. Ooh, ooh. You and me go fishing in the dark, lying on our backs and counting the stars where the cool grass grows. Down by the river in the foam We'll be falling in love In the middle of the night Just moving slow Staying the whole night through It feels so good to be with you Spring is almost over and the summer is coming ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. February 12, 2015, I'll call this meeting to order. I'd like to welcome everyone here. We have no minutes for approval today. We'll move to any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Anyone in the audience wish to postpone or withdraw? Seeing none, Mr. Martin, do you have anything? Mr. Salley? Mr. Martin, postponements or withdrawals? Yes, sir. If I may direct the commission's attention to page one of your agenda, Item 1 under final subdivision plans. Item A, Plan 2014-101F, Long Valley Farm, Kentucky, Incorporated Unit 2B, amended. This is property located at Long Valley Lane and Russell Cave Road. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? That would be until March 12th. If not, I'll entertain a motion for postponement. Mr. Chairman, move postponement of 2014-101F until March 12th. Thank you. Do we have a motion that's been made and seconded for postponement until March 12th? Long Valley Farm, Kentucky Incorporated. Please vote. You are. It's passed. Thank you. Any other postponements? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, there is one other item staff would like to bring to the commission's attention. It is on page three. Under development plans, item B, DP 2015-6, Richardson property amended. This is property located at 150 and 300 Childsburg Road. We have received a two-week postponement request from the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, Ms. Fleming. Mr. Chair, move postponement for two weeks of DP 2015-6 Richardson property. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement for two weeks. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion also passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll ask Mr. Salee to take us through the consent agenda today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. A number of your remaining items on today's agenda also appear on your consent agenda and can be considered as recommended by your subdivision committee at this time. There are three final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by that body. The first appears on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda, plan 2015-4F, an amended final record plat for the interchange service center, lot 4. This property has an address of 2250 Elkhorn Road. I would note that on your agenda you'll see the commission is required to make a finding for the approval of this plat, the staff has placed to replace a white sheet of paper entitled Finding for Use of Access Easement. One of the lots of this subdivision will be served only by an access easement. That is why that finding is necessary. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 2, item C, is also on the consent agenda. It is Plan 2015-5F Coventry, also known as Belmont Farm, Unit 8, for property that located at 2250 Spur Road. The final subdivision plan on your consent agenda is at page 2, item D of your meeting agenda, plan 2015-11F, an amended final subdivision plat for Brookhaven subdivision, unit 1F, block A, lot 1. This property has an address of 2434 Nicholasville Road. There are three final development plans also on your consent agenda. The first appears on page 4, item D of your meeting agenda, DP 2015-8, an amended final development plan for Chesapeake Equine. This property has an address of 1024 Greendale Road. The next item on your meeting agenda also appears on the consent agenda, page 4, item E, DP 2015-9, a final development plan for Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 5, Lots 4 through 6. This property has an address of 1135, 1145, and 1185 Monarch Street. The final plan on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. Page 4, item F, DP 2014-71, Manowar Development, Unit 2A, Lots A20 and A21. This is an amended final development plan for property at 1908 Bryant Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time the Commission can consider approving these items as has been recommended by your subdivision committee unless a member of the Commission or a member of today's audience, either applicant or citizen, would ask that they remove from the consent agenda to allow further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience wish to hear one of these items that's on the consent agenda? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read. Mr. Chair, move approval of consent agenda. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. We'll move on. Take the remaining items on the agenda as listed. Go to page three under development plans. It's item A, DP 2015-5, Chevy Chase Shops. You have a revision, which is on a green sheet before you, and also a request for a waiver that is on a white sheet before you. While they're setting up, we'll take the release and call of bonds. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Motion's been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds from the memo dated February 12, 2015. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Now for Chevy Chase Shops, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, The first item on your agenda is DP 2015-5 Chevy Chase Shops. This is a final development plan. Are we on? Yes, we are. There we go. Thank you. This is a final development plan for some property that was just recently rezoned. It is at the corner of Euclid Avenue and Marquis Avenue. The new Kroger's is in this location right here across the street from this corner site. McCall's Alley is at the rear of the property. McCall's Alley is a two-way movement throughout the entire block in this location. The proposal that you see before you is a slightly revised plan from the original submittal. We have a 9,600 square foot building in this location. We have a parking lot. They are proposing employee parking off McCaw's Alley in this location. We have a patio shown here. The detention for the site will be under the parking lot in this location. They're required in this situation to meet water quality standards, but they will also be addressing some quantity requirements as well by utilizing this underground detention, and that is not uncommon in these situations and in these sites. They are proposing 34 on-site parking. That's here, and of course the employee parking. They have a requirement based on this revised plan of 44, and that is because they've increased the restaurant seating for this building. You may recall that as originally was proposed on the zone change, there was a drive-through in the rear of the building. That is no longer available to them. That was conditionally zoned and restricted by the Urban County Council. And with this plan, they are proposing some retail and a restaurant. The restaurant seating is dictating the amount of parking. They will have to document on the plan that they have supplied 10 off-site parking spaces that will meet the required need for this site. And again, that's not uncommon either. We have a lot of places around town that have to lease off-site parking. They are, however, required to document that. The unique aspect of this plan, perhaps, and I might add, again, you can see it. Here's access here all the way through to McCall's Alley off the parking. This is identical to the zoning development plan that you approved. What is different, and you can see it here along Marquis, is they are proposing eight parking spaces at reverse angle parking along Marquis. Originally, there was parallel parking right along through here, and that was discussed at your zoning development hearing as well. The original plan had 10 spaces here, and they interacted with staff and with traffic engineering. They've reduced it to eight. And this is the area that is the subject of your waiver request because this is not a standard cross-section. And, of course, marquee as it currently exists is a standard cross-section, And the key being is that normally you have your sidewalk, your utility strip, and your pavement curb and gutter. All that's in the right-of-way. What they are proposing in this situation is to, again, create this parking and then bring the sidewalk around like this and connect it and have it close to the building. Now, it's a four-foot sidewalk. As it comes around, it goes to six feet. That allows some overhang for these parking. Now, angled parking requires less overhang, but it will allow them to maintain four feet of clearance on this sidewalk and have that. In addition, in reviewing the waiver request and talking with traffic engineering, the site distances will be improved. It's one of the reasons they were asked to reduce it from 10 to 8. They also will be widening the drive aisle, which will help site distances in this area. and we believe will help with this particularly. McCall's Alley, as I stated, is a two-way movement. It's an alley. It doesn't get a whole lot of use except by the people primarily that are utilizing it that work in the area. And obviously some folks are going to use it to get to and from. The street in this location is a one-way street. Marquee, of course, is two ways. Staff is making a recommendation that you can see on your agenda, and we handed out a nice, lovely spring color to you on this cold February day. We are recommending that they realign this employee parking to be reverse angle as well to help reduce potential conflicts on Macaw's Alley. It is small, it's narrow, and it's two-way traffic. So we felt that that would be an improvement by realigning, again, these seven employee parking spaces to be reverse angle, just like we have here. Now, we are currently in our community utilizing reverse angle up on High Street. And those are relatively new. Now, for several years, we've had a few, four, perhaps five, reverse angle spaces over on Rose Street. They've been there for quite some time. So this isn't totally new, but it's relatively new, and it's something that staff supports, particularly in infill and redevelopment, because it helps address parking issues as well as traffic and safety issues by allowing an alternative method of parking. I would add very briefly, again, they have their conditional zoning restrictions on the plan and that they need to add the one for the drive-through parking as well. That was left off the plan. They will need to add that on the plan. There was some discussion at the subdivision committee. Staff had expressed concern about the canopy requirement on this property. Staff has received an exhibit from the applicant. The canopy requirement for B1 is 20%. This exhibit demonstrates that they can meet it at about 21, a little over 21%, the canopy requirement. In conjunction, you can see that there is a condition that says denote that the building fenestration along Euclid Avenue will substantially comply with an exhibit that's on file. We have that for you as well. You can see that these exhibits are the architectural detail, the fenestration, the openings that the applicant is proposing. and that will be on file with planning and with building inspection so it can be reviewed at the time of a building permit to ensure that they are substantially in compliance with what they propose to do on this development. With that, staff is recommending approval of the plan, as you see on your revised handout, as well as on your waiver report that you see before you today. staff is recommending approval of the waiver and I might add that one other unique feature of the waiver request and of the change in the right-of-way or the construction of marquee is that that public parking will be partially on the right-of-way and on private property. They will have to establish an easement for that public parking. It will be public parking. It'll be open to anybody that would like to park there that's in the area. In addition, the sidewalk will also be in a public easement, and that is not unusual in our community. We have a lot of developments where we have easements that sidewalks are located in those easements or partially located in those easements. That is actually a lot less common than you might, or it's a lot more common than you may suspect, even in our new development. So they will have to establish that easement on a record plat, and you can see that's a condition that is included in your waiver report. We are recommending staff approval of the waiver. And if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Questions for Mr. Martin? Tom, let me ask you one thing. McCall's Alley in regards to the reverse parking, did you say that was one-way or two-way? It is two-way. It's two-way. It is two-way. It's two-way movement. Okay. Good deal. I misunderstood your moment ago. Very good. Anything else? If not, applicant. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Commission, I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. We are pretty much in agreement with Tom's presentation in the staff recommendation on the revised sheet. I do have some clarifications and concerns. The reverse diagonal parking on McCall's Alley, that typically, that layout generally has a little wider width of parking bay, basically a nine-foot to a ten-foot. So I'm concerned about losing some, the potential of losing a space or maybe maintaining those as nine-foot spaces since they are employee spaces and they'll be used repetitively by the same group of people. So maybe working with traffic engineering, we can come to an agreement on how to lay those out such that we don't lose a space. That's a critical number for us. I quickly laid it out, and it fits, but it's a little closer than it currently is. So I just would maybe have, like, some flexibility with that if I could. And then the other concern is the document all required. and off-street parking on plan. We are negotiating with a neighbor or neighbors to secure off-site, off-street parking, and that is really contingent upon the number of seats in the restaurant. and in order to, so there's about 40 seats in flux there where we meet, everything on site except for those last 40 seats, and that negotiation would be contingent upon the specific restaurant, the layout of the restaurant, how many seats they ultimately end up with, and I'd like that not to be contingent upon certification of the development plan but rather building permits, which would normally be the case after a development plan is in place and wanting to expand the number of seats, the restaurant would apply for a permit, and they would demonstrate at that time the number of seats to match or the number of parking spaces to match the number of seats specific to the plan. So just a little detail there of the timing. It, we're proposing 140 seats requiring 10 off street, off site parking spaces. If they come in with five less seats, then our negotiation is a little different than if we, plus it kind of speeds up our need to have those spaces. and maybe even puts us at a little disadvantage on the negotiating for the parking spaces. So I would like that 14 to be a document all required in off-street parking at time of building permit or occupancy permit so that the specific layout of the restaurant would be tied to how many off-site parking spaces were required rather than requiring those initially with the development plan. That was the only issue with that regard. So other than that, if there are any questions, I'd maybe answer. Thanks, Mr. Barrett. The waiver, you're okay with the waiver? Right, the waiver, yes, that's been recommended for approval. We're asking to vary the right-of-way there to enable us to do reverse diagonal parking on Marquis Avenue, and we'll provide an easement there to balance the public versus private. That's not unlike Rose Street, where it's partially in the right-of-way and partially on private property. So it's a precedent already in place, and we are agreeable with the waiver request. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Barrett? No? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Yes, ma'am? I am Rosa Brown and I work at 403 Marquis. That is right, we share the McCall's Alley. You know, my concern still is with the 7 parking there and the traffic and circulation, kind of that whole little area. I'm also wondering about the marquee parking. It's going to be public parking. I was wondering if that's going to be meter parking. Is it all-day parking? I know right now with our parallel parking there, there's about six spaces, and they are used for maybe people that are working at Kroger's parking there all day. I'm not sure. Employees or U.K. students. that leave their cars there all day, plus additional people parking to run into that corner of Kroger's, in and out. So with the trucks coming in for delivery to Kroger's, with that congestion, people coming in and out, and I'm just still concerned about McCall's and the access onto Marquis. Since it is a two-way alley, it's only big enough for one car, so I can still see that being problematic. Yeah, and then for the 140 seat, I think it's gone from 68 to 100 to now 140 possibly for the seating in the restaurant, which it just keeps increasing. I don't know then if it's going to, what kind of type of restaurant it's going to be and whether they're going to serve liquor or what kind of an establishment. So anyway, those are just a few of the concerns. And I guess who is going to keep the parking on, the public parking on my marquee, the maintenance. I don't know. I guess the city will be responsible for that maintenance that occurs there. So those are my concerns. Okay, thank you. Trying to answer one of those questions, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong. The parking on Marquis will be public, and as far as is it pay or not, that would be up to someone other than us if I'm correct in my statement. Mr. Martin, come and ask. It will be public parking. It will be under the control of our parking authority, and any decisions as to whether it should or should not be metered is up to the parking authority. It's possible it will be. It's possible they will decide not to do so. It's possible they may meter it in the future, but that decision has not been made at this time. Okay. Tom, while you're there, can you answer your question as far as the restaurant, to whether alcohol will be served on premises or not? I had no idea as to the status of their alcohol licensing and that sort of thing. Okay. Very good. Anyone? Mr. Wilson, yes. One quick question about the space allowance. Can two cars pass in that area, or is it truly a one-way kind of situation where only one car can get in that alley? Are you speaking of McCall's Alley? Yes, sir. It is very narrow. It's about 10 feet wide. Yes, it is. You have to be willing to share and to defer to other people when you traverse that alley. Any other questions right now? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, thank you, ma'am. I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion. I guess maybe I should ask traffic to weigh in on McCall's Alley and the reverse parking and the needs and thoughts and so forth. Good afternoon. Casey with Traffic Engineering. Traffic has looked at McCall's Alley. As Tom stated, it is, I think, 12-foot edge of pavement to edge of pavement width. With the access on the alley, the way traffic kind of evaluated it was that it's an alley, so the traffic volumes are low and the speeds are low. I think it's eight parking spaces that they're proposing will be employee parking, so the turnover of those spaces will also be minimum. So we do not see a concern with it. Do you have a preference, reverse angle, straight in, parking? What's your thoughts? planning and i had talked about that prior um i don't have a real strong opinion either way honestly i think the cars will um probably use it either way depending on which way they're coming so I'm not sure if it's really going to I couldn't really determine a real justification either way okay anything else for Ms. Favreau? Not very helpful on that one. I have one quick question is is McCall's alley is that a public that's a public yes sir so in the case of snow and ice and things like that who cleans it is that the city it is the city I'm not an expert on the way that they, it's obviously an alley, so it's going to be on the low priority. Well, with that, can a truck get in that area to clean it? Yes, because with their proposal, the width of the alley is still, you'll still have that same width, they'll just now be parking adjacent to it. Okay. So it's not going to be a 12-foot alley with an 8-foot car parked on it. it'll be a 12 foot alley with an 8 foot car parked beside it. It's an angled car so I'm kind of simplifying it a bit but your 12 foot width will still be there. Any other questions? If not thank you and I guess maybe I should bring Tony back up yes to provide a little bit of a rebuttal. This is a picture of the alley as it exists. It's, as Casey has indicated, a 12-foot alley. Currently, there's parking similar to what we're proposing on the left. As you go in, our site is on the right, where the wood garage structure is currently. So we would basically be mimicking what's on the left. The difference being is that we're proposing where our parking is located is to bring the parking dimensions into code, whereas now you have a 12-foot alley. Where our parking spaces are, that 12-foot will be widened to 16-foot to meet the back-out movement with. in addition to the width of the parking space, which is 16 1⁄2 feet, plus the six-foot sidewalk along the building edge. So it's an improved situation from the way it is today and the way it's functioning and operating. So we're basically mirroring where that van is, except we're adding four feet of pavement there plus our parking space. So in my perspective, it's an improvement to what is currently being how it's operating. So that's how we're treating Macau's Alley. It is a public right-of-way. I would say there hasn't been a snowplow on Macau's Alley in 50 years. Be my guess. On my street, I get one once a year maybe. So it'll probably get more maintenance from the private people than the public service. That would be my guess. I don't know. But we are agreeable to the spaces on marquee being metered or not metered. We see a balance, pro and con, for if they're metered or not metered. so we don't really have a we would just defer to the parking authority as to whether they want to do that or not and then the type of restaurant we do not have a permanent restaurant they're still in negotiating and probably are not at a position to do that by our zoning we can have liquor I don't know that that's the direction they're heading in at this point, but that's where we are today. Thank you. Thank you, Tony. Maybe I should ask Tom Martin. There you are. One other thing. Alton was asking as far as number 14 to change the timing on that. I was going to address that. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your question. The applicants requesting a use on this property, retail and restaurant, it needs to meet the required parking. The requested use needs to meet the required parking. This plan needs to demonstrate that. If they wish to add seating, they can always provide additional off-seat parking meeting the requirements, and they can have it. And that's routinely done by other restaurants. They add seating. they have to have the parking to accommodate that additional seating. But staff believes that your development plans need to meet the requirements of your ordinance. So you're suggesting leaving the language as is? Yes, sir. Okay. And they should adjust their seating accordingly to meet their required parking. Now, again, as I stated, if they want to add seats later, they'll just have to provide that off-site parking. So their timing in that regard can be met at their need. Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? No, sir. Ms. Plumlee? Tom, the question, how far can the off-site parking be from the site? It is 300 feet from the building, and they have to have a lease, and it's a minimum two-year term on the lease. But, again, we deal with that routinely in our office. Any other questions? If not, we can move on. I would offer, as far as number 11, discussion, discuss sidewalk-long marquee and possible need of a waiver. We do have a waiver before us. Mr. Sally, you had some possible revisions, language revisions to the conditions up there a moment ago. Did I see that, or am I jumping ahead? I think we just posted the green handout from the staff. Okay. Okay. I saw some lines through it. I didn't know if. I think it's the same one that Mr. Martin handed out at the start of the presentation. Okay. Okay. Let me offer that number 11, since we do have a waiver, we've had language before that provided the Planning Commission approves waiver of land subdivision regulations shown on the attached document. Would that work? Yes, the condition on the waiver report could substitute for number 11 on this listing. Okay. All right, then. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, there may be other citizens here wishing to comment on this plan. We actually got through the public comment section of this. With that, if the commission is ready, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Berkeley. Mr. Chair, I'm going to have to recuse to vote on this one. I was hired by a bank to do some work on the property yesterday. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'll move approval of DP 2015-5, Shiver Chase Shops, with the revised conditions, and saying number 11, finding in favor of the waiver, so that satisfies number 11. And I guess 14, I'd like to help him out on that, but the way that reads, it looks like he just says document what he has in there. I think we're fine with the way Tom explained it. All right. That's my motion. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with revised conditions. And, Mr. Cravens, let me ask you, in your motion, are you approving the waiver as well? I stated so. Okay. Okay. So, motions for approval of DP 2015-5 Chevy Chase Shops with the revised conditions, along with the approval of the waiver for this reason stated. We do have a second. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes thank you next we move on to the bottom of page three it's DP 2015-7 Chancellor Chancellor subdivision continues on page four we do also have staff revisions that's on a blue sheet of paper before you Thank you. Mr. Martin, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this is item C on your agenda under development plans, DP 2015-7, Chancellor's Subdivision, The Springs, Parcel 3 amended, and staff has indeed passed out to you some revised conditions. on a blue sheet for your consideration. This is an amended development plan for the spring site located here on Harrodsburg Road. Here's Lane Allen. Of course, over here we have Turflin Mall, a Walgreens. You may have noticed a Burger King behind the Walgreens. this is mitchell avenue as it curves back in this direction and runs back to clay's mill this is the existing cvs that's now been there for a few years mcdonald's was approved in this location built open doing business raising canes is in this location it has recently opened as well The amendment that you see before you is for this lot and this lot. On your approved plan, there are two retail buildings located in this location and this location. What you see before you today is a revised plan from what staff did receive previously. They have also clarified the applicant has the information that these are to be medical offices and not retail buildings in this particular location. You have an existing access point here to Mitchell. Here is an existing access point to Harrodsburg Road. And, of course, they did construct the turn lane along Harrodsburg Road in this location. And, of course, we have cross-access and parking on these properties. The buildings that you see before you, the office buildings, in this location, this building has gotten slightly smaller than the approved square footage, and they've reduced the parking somewhat, although they've got it all up in this location. In the previous plan, there was some parking in this area adjacent to the residential neighborhood. This building has actually gotten a little bit larger, and they've also increased their parking for this particular office. There are standard conditions of approval on this plan, and then we have several cleanup conditions, one of which is denote the height of the building. In this location, it's 22 feet. It's a one story, but they're telling us it's 20 feet, 2 feet tall. This one, they haven't indicated the height. We need them to indicate the height of that building. We have a condition that they remove the parallel parking that is proposed in the internal parking area on C2. And this is in this location right here. And we do have an exhibit. Okay, they've got it. There you go. That is an exhibit that the applicant has submitted to both planning and to traffic engineering, showing that they are meeting, prepared to meet that condition on the plan. we have a condition delete note 21 which is a redundant note that they added on the plan and revise note 17 to read prior to building permit and what that is addressing are the easements that exist in this area and this proposed building sitting on those easements The previous building was sitting on these easements. The previous note stated prior to certificate of occupancy or zoning compliance. This situation has existed for some time. There's been a lot of work done on the site. There have been minor plats approved. Staff's estimation, this easement conflict could have been addressed. but we would like to be sure that it is addressed at this point prior to any building permit being issued for this building. We have to denote the fenestration for building B on lot D, shall substantially comply with an exhibit, and again, we have received exhibits from the applicant. and I don't have mine with me. In this stack, it's under there. Right there. Thank you. I just, here we go. I do. Well, I said I have it. Matt, you and I were just talking about it. Not that one, Bill, thanks. It's the fenestration and the architecture. Matt and I were actually discussing it briefly. I know I brought it, and I apologize. I have misplaced it in all my stacks of paper. It says Baptist Health. There we go. There we go. Right. That is the exhibit, and that addresses concerns that staff had on the presentation of the building itself. to Mitchell Avenue. Now, there's a discussion item on your blue sheet that says discuss the landscape buffers from the houses and lots on Spring Grove and Mitchell Avenue. And this is related to several things I've briefly touched on already, including the height of the buildings. the approved plan had this building slanted and further away from this property. And that is what this area indicates. That's the difference in the current plan before you in the existing plan. This building, this is the difference. the approved building starts right here at this orange line and goes up and that's one reason the parking's been realigned so this is a 60 foot difference from the approved plan now i know the planning commission recalls the considerable discussion about the relationship of this development to the residential properties there was a lot of discussion about landscaping there was discussion about lighting the neighborhood association was very involved and staff and i believe this planning commission shared a concern about that relationship. And these buildings, the approved buildings, were placed after several discussions to address that concern, as well as landscaping and, in fact, lighting was discussed as well. This is an extremely significant change in staff's estimation here. This is not as bad as it was. Originally, this building showed up sitting on this easement and they did move that. So this is somewhat better but again it's close and again staff's concerned what's the height of this building one story? Well this is a 22 foot one story building. There's also at least five feet of fill perhaps more in this location of the development so we've got a higher elevation relative to our residential neighborhood. Now the applicant is required to meet article 18 and Mr. Sally held that up for you. That's exactly this that we have handed out to you. That's Article 18. That's a requirement they have to meet. And they have room to meet that, and they can meet that. And there has been discussion with the applicant about additional landscaping, and I know that the applicants had discussions with the Neighborhood Association because those officers of that have verified that, and we have emails of those communications between staff, neighborhood association, and the applicant on additional landscaping. And staff still has a concern, and that concern is we believe particularly along the boundary with the residential neighborhoods that there be landscaping above and beyond just Article 18. Article 18 requires a tree every 40 feet. It requires two hedges, six feet in height. But again, we've got a large building, a tall building, being pushed closer. This building is closer. There's elevation changes now relative to these properties. We believe it would be appropriate to add additional landscaping. One of the items that has been discussed are evergreen trees. and to space those between the 40-foot trees that are required by Article 18. That's as an example, and that has been used in other situations as a buffer and to supplement the buffering, again, relative to the residential neighborhood. Staff would like to have that on the plan so it can be enforced. That's one of the issues we're concerned about is in the future. the applicant's gone. He's sold the property. He's moved on, and that's fine. Tom is not here to remind you that they... So an enforcement issue could arise in the future that could have a negative impact, we believe. So we would like to see that as an element on your approved development plan so that it can be enforced in the future should it need to be. And as an example of one of the issues that kind of highlights staff's concern in having a discussion with some neighborhood folks, we were told that the McDonald's menu board is extremely bright and very noticeable to the residents. And frankly, when the staff was reviewing this, we hadn't given it as much concern. Those menu boards are bigger now than they used to be. There was an amendment that made them larger so they're brighter and they're shedding more light. So, again, that just kind of, and there's nothing to be done about that. It's done. It's a done deal. Okay? McDonald's has their menu board. But it kind of exemplifies the need to have a good buffer adjacent to the residential area. And, again, staff has presented you with revised conditions. We do believe that this is an approvable plan, and we are recommending approval subject to the conditions. And again, your discussion item on the landscape buffers, we would like to see those buffers enhanced above and beyond Article 18, and we'd like to see that as a condition on the development plan. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions? Yes. This Monday. Tom, it runs through my mind that there is somewhere on this property, it was called the Springs Inn, that there is a spring and a spring box. And how does that relate to these easements that we're talking about? I remember, I think I remember that the spring was taken care of, but is it involved with these easements? It's right there. And there's a stormwater easement in this location. And it's been handled with a new spring box. and that sort of thing, exactly as required. They've done that. Yeah. Other questions? Yes. Tom, have you all basically told them, I guess, what you're looking for? You're saying over and above, but we're really not saying what that should be on the landscape buffer. We have discussed evergreens spaced alternately with the 40 feet of the trees that are required under Article 18. There may be other options. We don't want to lock the door on a better option if one exists, but that is something that has been utilized in the past. They may provide options. We'll see. Any other questions? If not, applicant? Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter. I'm with Vision Engineering, and I've got Mr. Tom Johnson here. He's the applicant and the owner of the development. We are in agreement with the conditions, well, with the revised conditions, and we'd like to discuss the item number 12, landscape buffers. We have some pictures of the site that may be of interest to you. Mr. Johnson has already started doing a lot of the landscaping, and we feel that what he's done to date is far above and beyond what is required. And if I could put some of these pictures on the overhead. And one thing I'd like to say, too, is typically on a development like this, landscaping doesn't go in until the buildings are built and the site's graded but he's gone ahead and worked his perimeter out and he's got most of his landscaping in so if you would like i could show you some pictures of of what's out there today sure go ahead and if it's okay with you all I was going to go up to the board and kind of point out and I can identify where some of these pictures are actually sure on them on the map you can tag team us go ahead and I wanted to make one quick note as Tom had mentioned about the board in the back of the McDonald's here I met with the homeowners association and there was some concern and they were worried about you know some of the extra light that went through there i went ahead when we did some extra landscaping along this entrance area and put in all of these perimeter trees i went ahead and put some additional plantings in here and over here an evergreen block that did take care of that problem for the association so again we we try to go above and beyond and it was on my nickel not anybody else's so again we try to do the right thing and keep everybody happy but we want to look nice too. This particular picture is looking from Harrodsburg Road. Sorry my arms are pretty short and looking down this property boundary going behind this building. We have landscaped all the way up to about this area. We didn't want to continue on to Harrodsburg Road until we ended up having this building finished for the fear of you know, tearing things up when we're doing foundations. So we have completed this area going along the boundary all the way around here. Once this building is complete, we can supplement in some of the different areas. Same thing along here. We've got some of the larger plantings that we put up on the top of the ridge so they would be as tall as possible and block as much from the view from the next-door neighbor. the white corner of the garage you see up there is in the back of this house here. There's a white house and then their white garage in the back. And the first trees that you see there are oversized. I mean, these are 10-foot trees that we've installed instead of small 5-6-foot evergreens. They're starting out at 8 to 10 feet along that entire perimeter with different varieties, some hemlocks some green giant arborvitae some deciduous trees some clump red buds and birch trees fiburnum and some cherry laurels so we've we've loaded it up around the perimeter so it can get established this winter and be ready to take off come springtime again it'll create a block instantly now and you just move that much faster and growing that much faster come you know when the weather gets warm. This evergreen block is at the back, the very bottom of the property here that joins this next door neighbor at this house. And I've got an email from her. She's tickled to death with this new plan because we've gotten rid of the entrance that was originally on the back here along with the parking up against her property boundary. She's tickled to death with the plan, the use, everything that we've got on this particular development plan. On the plan that was approved previously, we had a certain number of trees along here, and we planted a continuous hedge of evergreens, and those smaller green ones are, they're evergreen, but they're cherry laurels, about six feet tall. And in along that line, we put some arborvitae that are about eight feet tall, and we'll get about 40 feet tall. So that will create a huge block along that perimeter that's already been installed. And again, we can supplement with some additional things once we get the foundation completed on this building in the back. This is a shot from this entrance coming off Mitchell Avenue, where we've created the landscape buffer along the street of Mitchell, where the sidewalk hasn't been completed yet. We went ahead and put three and a half inch caliper trees in, huge trees, a lot bigger than what standard calls for, and evergreen bushes in between the trees. We've also gone along this edge where there weren't any trees or any landscaping required and went ahead and added them here when we added them on the other side to block the McDonald's lights and created kind of an aesthetically pleasing entrance coming in lined with trees. okay this is another shot a close-up shot of this white house as it sits right here now i believe all of her perimeter has a six foot fence which in one of the notes that mr martin had mentioned in in making sure that we had a double hedgerow in lieu of a fence where we do have a fence. We still plan on putting additional plantings from what we have here, but we won't be required as per the ordinance to put two rows, if I'm interpreting it correctly, because they do have a six-foot fence in some areas, but not all perimeter areas along this boundary. You can see they're large, in addition to the ones that we put in there, and you can see a better picture there from a shot farther back. Keep in mind, there has been a long established row of trees and bushes that have been on the property boundary for many, many, many years. You can see by the size of some of those trees, unfortunately, in the winter, all of them are deciduous, so they lose all their leaves. And so, you know, in the springtime, when that flushes out with new growth, you won't see anything. And we're trying to make sure that in the winter, it's going to, it still look nice and be blocked. and with the 10-foot trees going in, they will grow together very quickly and create that permanent block for the wintertime as well. That's a view kind of looking from the back part of the property up towards Harrodsburg Road with this white house and there's two garages right here that are white as well. I think the other pictures are too dark to show up. Okay. But again, one of the things that I have talked with the Homeowners Association representatives. Ms. T. Bergman has been kind enough to be involved throughout the whole process and we have an email Mr. Martin had mentioned that gave full support of what we're doing and everything that I've done today has been what I said I was going to do and they've been tickled to death and pleased. I also have an email down here from Mrs. King on the bottom of the property stating that again how pleased they were with the new plan and how they preferred it over the old plan, and we're tickled to death what we've done and what it's going to look like when it gets finished. So we do have the support, and we have got the track record of working with them closely throughout the process, and I think they can vouch for that, and we've got the e-mails, correspondence to show. But we would prefer to do additional plantings after the buildings get done. I don't know if it's going to require, you know, I'm a landscape guy, so I don't mind spending the extra money to make it look nice, and I want it to look nice. But I don't know if we need to go above and beyond what the ordinance calls for with what we've already planted, in addition to what's already on that property boundary with some very large established trees. So if it pleases the commission, I'd like to have that discussion and work that out between the parties. but I don't want to be forced into putting things in there that it really may not need based on what we're already doing. With that, we'd be glad to answer any questions. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Mr. Johnson. Questions? Let me ask this, Mr. Johnson. And, you know, to me, what I just saw from the pictures with the evergreens that you're talking about that you have put in, and it sounds like you plan on continuing in connection to what the ordinance says. We may not be putting one tree in every 40 feet, but it seems like we're putting more in than that. Am I correct? Yes. Okay. We will be above what the ordinance will require. I just would allow my landscape design team to look at the finished product and put trees in the optimal places at that point in time. Kind of like what we've done now where we've done it around the areas that are, you know, at their peak versus doing it maybe on a slope downhill, which doesn't benefit the neighbors. And if I obligate and show on a plan now specifically where something's going to go, I don't want it to come back to bite me later and say, well, that's not where that tree was supposed to go. And yet it wouldn't have been in the optimal place. Okay. Mr. Martin, do you have something to add? I'd like to reiterate the point that I was attempting to make earlier. I have no doubt, staff has no doubt, of Mr. Johnson's commitment to landscaping. We don't. And as long as he's involved with this property, no doubt it will be maintained and done. What staff is concerned about is future enforcement of the above and beyond. Because in a future date, if the landscaping needs to be addressed, the owners at that time will have to meet Article 18 and Article 18 only. There won't be any above and beyond at that time required of them. And trees die, trees get damaged, things change. So staff's concern is that the additional landscaping be specified on the development plan so it can be enforced in the future if needed. And we believe a commitment, Mr. Johnson's commitment, could certainly be expressed in a condition on that development plan. Let me ask you this. Would you agree what they're doing will be over and above the minimum? Some of what we've seen is, but again, what is ultimately done on the site has to be addressed. I mean, the landscaping will eventually be finished. It will all eventually be in. Do you have any language that will make everybody comfortable? We haven't at this time developed any exactly precise language. Okay. We have in the past developed precise language and come up with things, additional buffers. Newtown Pike and Dr. Poole, for instance, was one where we came up with some very precise things. We have done that in the past, and we have no doubt we can. Okay. Questions from commission members? Any thoughts? I don't see anyone else in the audience that would like to speak. So at this point in time, it would be up to the commission, I believe. What about the existing tree line? Doesn't that meet the requirement? That is an evaluation. It's part of the landscape plan, whether they meet. and again 40 feet and that sort of thing. But once again, that meets the ordinance. We've had a discussion today about above and beyond, and we would like to see above and beyond incorporated onto the development plan so it can be enforced if needed in the future. I guess what I'm saying, if the tree line that's existing already meets it, then anything he's doing, which he's just showed us, is above and beyond. And again, I don't know how we can put something on this applicant that might happen 20 years from now. The Article 18 may very well apply 20 years from now. I mean, that's... Ms. Plumlee, question? Yes, Tom. Could we require a specific plan to be number 12 for a landscape plan that would take the place of number 12? instead of saying above and beyond actual drawings? Yes, it could be. I think that would be a good thing to do. Ms. Plumlee, we're working on trying to put something on the overhead for you to consider. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Mundy. In trying to be specific, he still hasn't built those buildings, and we don't know at this point what that ramification is going to be with regard to what he is thinking or planning to do until those buildings go in the ground. So I think it's good. Yes, ma'am, if I may. It is our understanding that the enforcement folks won't require that until permits are pulled for those buildings and those buildings are going to be occupied. Yeah. Let me ask this while language has been worked on. Mr. Johnson, fenestration seems to be coming up a lot these days and so forth. What are these buildings going to look like? I've heard 20-foot height, one-story 20-foot height. Do you have any? I thought I had an elevation. I had our architects try to send something over, and it wasn't dimensioned, unfortunately. Can you, I don't know if you want to put that drawing back up there. Yes. That's the only thing I've got with me, unfortunately, is the rendering of this building. And we've got EOP Architects is doing the architectural design for us. And they want to be proud and put their stamp on it and have a really nice, unique-looking piece of property. And Baptist Health is also wanting to make sure that it's a great-looking property for their benefit for the short and long term. I don't have a finished plan yet that I could really show you to give you a definitive answer. Right now, we're in the process of getting a space layout from them. And once we get those offices and the office spaces outlined inside the perimeter plan that we currently have and show on this development plan, then we can give you elevations for the different sides of the building to show the different things that are going to be aesthetically pleasing. Windows and different architectural features. They're going to want to make it look nice, and we're going to make sure that it is because we're actually going to be doing the construction of the facility for the end user. You mentioned that a couple times as far as aesthetically pleasing, and I'm sure you do. Tom mentioned a moment ago, you know, the finished grade that was shown plus a 20. You know, what I'm curious about on the back wall, backing up to these houses, are we talking about a monoplane wall without any breaks, without any windows or anything? I don't have an answer for you because, again, we're trying to build a building and make sure that the tenant or the new owner down the road, you know, it fits their needs. I'm assuming that they would put windows in any of the doctor's offices or exam rooms that would be on that part of the building. I know the lobby areas were initially drawn in the front areas, leaving the back room areas, you know, where you're going to be seeing patients. And even if it's small windows, there would be some windows to let in some natural light. Now, I understand your concern, but the good thing is with all the landscaping that we're going to be doing, you may not see that part of the building anyway if somebody disliked the back side of it and the windows were too small for their personal preference. But I think the combination of both those things will make sure that it's not bothersome to the next-door neighbor. Yeah, that's the only place I'm coming from. And let me say, Ms. Teberg, who was in subdivision, they've been here throughout the process along with you. She did make one comment in committee that they were pleased with this plan much more than what they had seen, and efforts were being made to accommodate them, which we appreciate as well. So, you know, what I'm just looking at is, you know, if you've got four, six, seven feet of elevation and a 20-foot wall there as well, that's going to stick out and it's going to be a while before. And you're putting in some good-sized trees. I'll admit that, but it's going to take some very good-sized trees to cover those things up. But, you know, I'm just asking. One of the things that we can do in that green space, again, once it's completed, we'll have an idea of how much room we have to work in between the existing tree line and then the additional plantings that we would put and consider perimeter-type trees with evergreens and deciduous stuff. We can put things up against the building to create and soften and to make it, again, more aesthetically pleasing to complement the windows that would be back there. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Thank you. Mr. Johnston is putting in landscaping based on the approved plan. He has come before you today with a request to move these buildings. They're being moved. Right now he's working off the old location. That's all he's allowed to do. So he's putting in landscaping. And again, staff appreciates that. We have no doubt his commitment to landscaping. But again, by moving the buildings, which were located previously out of deference to a lot of concerns about the relationship to these residential areas in the neighborhood, is why we again are recommending to you today additional landscaping that can be enforced over time. Okay? Because again, the applicants before you today are asking permission to move these buildings. So the current activities on that site are based on the approved plan. So all that landscaping that's going on is based on a building that's sitting this way. It's based on a building that's 60 feet further this way. Again, staff is concerned about the need for additional landscaping based on the amendment that you see before you today. So do we have a suggested language? We do, Mr. Chairman. This is based on everything that's been said today where the anticipation is there will be landscaping over and above the minimum Article 18 requirements. This will respect the staff's request of you today to where that over and above landscaping becomes part of the development plan for the future time. And it will also respect the fact that those existing trees are there which do meet the Article 18 requirements. and that additional plantings are expected between these new buildings and their adjacent property lines. So with that and with the commission's question as to whether or not number 12 can be revised, here's some additional language that I think will accomplish what everybody has talked about here for the last half an hour or so. A new number 12 that would read, denote, meaning this plan note would appear on the plan, the note and exhibit identifying final installed landscape buffers from houses lots on Spring Grove and Mitchell Avenues shall be provided to the Division of Planning how this would be done then is obviously the staff would ask that this note be placed on the plan that's before you today it would not affect the landscape plan that is an ordinary part of the building inspection process through the permitting of these buildings, but what is unusual about that is then that plan would also come to the Division of Planning and go into this development plan file. So there would be a note on the development plan, the landscape plan would be in the file, and then if the landscaping were to change between the plan approved by building inspection and its installation, there would then need to be a revised plan submitted to planning to indicate those changes. I think with that type of a process, we would all have everything that's been talked about today incorporated on the plan, and then many years down the road, should landscaping be taxed or cut down inadvertently or things of that nature, there would be the enforcement mechanism to see that the landscaping be replaced. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Mr. Johnson, Matt, be agreeable with that? Yes. Pat Brewer. Patrick? Well, I was going to ask that as part of a comment. The first comment I'd like to make is I think the absence of neighborhood opposition is speaking volumes in here. So I think you all have done your duty, yeoman's duty, and the work that you've done and the work you've done with them. But I'm hesitant to force somebody to go over and above the regs, which we often cite as why we have to do things that tick off neighbors. Well, that's what the regs we have to follow. But in this situation, I understand, and as you already answered it, that you're good with it. I'm happy with the compromise. Okay. Very good. Anything else from the commission members? Yes, sir. I'd just like to say a lot of times that we have, and I don't want to cast aspersion on all developers, But, Mr. Johnson, I applaud you for what you've done and how you've worked with the community in resolving these issues. I think, to me, that's the model of what our community is all about, is that collaborative activity and the fact that you've gone out of your way to even help them out with the McDonald's sign and things like that. So I just want to express my personal appreciation for your work. Anything else? If not, there's no one else in the audience, so I'm willing to entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of DP 2015-7, the revised staff recommendation before us with the language, I think it was still 12, denote, et cetera, that Bill had put up and that the applicant agreed with. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with the revised conditions with the one noted change. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Matt. Commission items? I believe that's our last plan. Any commission items? No one's in the audience. Staff items? Chairman just remind the Commission that you did add a work session to your calendar next Thursday. Yes, sir. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment Motion's been made in second and all those in favor, please say aye. Thank you