# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - July 9, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 9, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3716 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3716?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-07-09 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 9,616 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 July 9, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Cravens presided over the meeting, which included 14 agenda items and resulted in 12 motions and votes. The Commission heard 4 public comments during the session. The meeting covered a range of planning matters, including approval of subdivision and development plans. Notable approvals included PLAN 2015-59F for Hamburg Place Farm (Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169), DP 2008-11 for the Louis Hillenmeyer Property amendment, ZDP 2009-86 for the Bryan Property, and PLAN 2015-60CE for Emerge Development, LLC. The Commission also approved the Consent Agenda, Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit, and administrative matters including the Election of Officers and Delegation of Secretary's Duties. One item, DP 2015-55 concerning Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) and Burke, Hockensmith & Maggard Property, Unit 5, was postponed. The Commission also addressed Postponements or Withdrawals as a separate agenda item. The meeting concluded with adjournment following Staff Items presented for informational purposes. ## Attendance **Present:** - Mike Cravens - Carolyn Plumlee - Bill Wilson - Will Berkley - David Drake - Karen Mundy - Frank Penn - Joseph Smith - Carolyn Richardson **Absent:** - Patrick Brewer - Mike Owens **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:54:54] Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Minutes from April 30, 2015, and June 11, 2015, were approved by voice vote with no opposition. **Postponement of PLAN 2015-64F: The Grange Estates** [timestamp: 0:55:30] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The matter was postponed to July 23, 2015, by voice vote with no opposition. **Approval of Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 0:58:12] Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy. Consent Agenda items PLAN 2015-58F and DP 2015-51 were approved by voice vote with no opposition. **Approval of PLAN 2015-59F: Hamburg Place Farm** [timestamp: 1:07:05] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joseph Smith. The plan for Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169, was approved by voice vote with one abstention (Will Berkley). The approval includes 12 conditions, including Urban County Engineer's acceptance of drainage and sewers, Traffic Engineer's approval of street cross-sections and access, Building Inspection's approval of landscaping, and documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval of Capacity Assurance Program requirements prior to plan certification. **Approval of Waivers for PLAN 2015-59F** [timestamp: 1:08:07] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joseph Smith. Waivers to Articles 6-2(a) and 6-6(b) of the Land Subdivision Regulations were approved by voice vote with one abstention (Will Berkley). **Postponement of DP 2015-55: Bluegrass Business Park** [timestamp: 1:09:55] Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy. The matter was postponed to August 13, 2015, by voice vote with no opposition. **Reapproval of DP 2008-11: Louis Hillenmeyer Property** [timestamp: 1:16:29] Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bill Wilson. The amended plan was reapproved by voice vote with no opposition, subject to three conditions. **Reapproval of ZDP 2009-86: Bryan Property** [timestamp: 1:24:43] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Will Berkley. The plan was reapproved by voice vote with no opposition, subject to two conditions. **Approval of Plan 2015-60CE: Emerge Development, LLC** [timestamp: 1:37:18] Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Karen Mundy. The plan was approved by voice vote with no opposition, subject to nine conditions. **Release and Call of Performance Bonds** [timestamp: 1:37:50] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Bill Wilson. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition. **Approval of Nominating Slate for Planning Commission Officers** [timestamp: 1:40:35] Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Frank Penn. The nominating slate was approved by voice vote with no opposition. **Delegation of Secretary's Duties** [timestamp: 1:41:06] Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Bill Wilson. The delegation of Secretary's duties to the Director of Division of Planning and staff was approved by voice vote with no opposition. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the council on July 9, 2015, covering topics related to community services and traffic safety. **Grocery Bus Ministry for Seniors** [timestamp: 0:00:00] Peggy presented information about a grocery bus ministry initiative designed to serve seniors in the community. She described the program as well-received and characterized it as mutually beneficial for both the community and the church. Peggy invited other churches and businesses to participate in the effort. **Clay's Mill Road Intersection Project** [timestamp: 0:03:12] Councilmember Jennifer Massadi provided an update on ongoing construction at the Clay's Mill Road and Wellington Way intersection. She highlighted traffic improvements and pedestrian safety enhancements being implemented as part of the project, while acknowledging that the public would need to exercise patience during the construction period. **Traffic Enforcement and Safety** [timestamp: 0:12:33] Lieutenant Bacon addressed traffic enforcement priorities at the intersection, emphasizing the importance of compliance with traffic control devices, particularly the no-left-turn restriction. He urged drivers to exercise patience and attentiveness while navigating the area and to yield to pedestrians. **Pedestrian Safety Concerns** [timestamp: 0:17:30] A Stonewall resident raised concerns about the challenges and dangers associated with crossing Clay's Mill Road, particularly during peak traffic hours. The resident expressed optimism that the planned signalization improvements and new crosswalks would enhance safety for pedestrians in the area. ## Appointments The following appointments and reappointments to the Urban County Planning Commission were made: * **Mike Owens** was appointed to the Urban County Planning Commission * **Mike Cravens** was reappointed to the Urban County Planning Commission * **Will Berkley** was reappointed to the Urban County Planning Commission * **William Wilson** was reappointed to the Urban County Planning Commission ## Contested Items **Election of Officers** A heated discussion arose during the election of officers. A member raised concerns about term limits and advocated for rotating leadership roles to ensure broader participation across the membership. The member emphasized that leadership rotation would also improve public perception of fairness in the organization's governance. The specific outcome of this discussion and whether any changes to officer election procedures were implemented is not documented in the available meeting materials. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building. [timestamp: 00:00] Mike Cravens presided over the opening of the meeting. ## Approval of Minutes The minutes from the April 30, 2015, and June 11, 2015, meetings were presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:54:54] Key speakers on this item included Bill Wilson and Carolyn Richardson. The minutes were approved by voice vote without objection. ## Postponements or Withdrawals During this agenda item, the body considered requests to postpone or withdraw items from consideration. Frank Penn and Carolyn Plumlee participated in the discussion [timestamp: 00:55:30]. A request to postpone PLAN 2015-64F was granted. No other postponements or withdrawals were made during this portion of the meeting. ## Consent Agenda - No Discussion Items [timestamp: 00:58:12] Two items were approved by consent agenda without discussion during this portion of the meeting: - PLAN 2015-58F - DP 2015-51 Key speakers involved in this agenda item included Bill Sallee, Carolyn Plumlee, and Karen Mundy. Both items were approved without further debate or discussion from the body. ## PLAN 2015-59F: Hamburg Place Farm (Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169) [timestamp: 1:00:22] The board discussed and approved PLAN 2015-59F for Hamburg Place Farm located at Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169. Key speakers in the discussion included Tom Martin, Kevin Phillips, Frank Penn, and Will Berkley. The plan was approved with conditions. The approval included a waiver for Articles 6-2(a) and 6-6(b) of the Land Subdivision Regulations. The waiver was granted due to sewer line routing concerns and financing needs associated with the project. The outcome of the agenda item was approval. ## DP 2015-55: Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) & Burke, Hockensmith [timestamp: 1:09:21] The development plan for DP 2015-55, involving Bluegrass Business Park Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) and the Burke, Hockensmith & Maggard Property, Unit 5 (AMD.), was presented for discussion. **Key Participants** Bill Sallee, Carolyn Plumlee, and Karen Mundy participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The plan was postponed. The postponement resulted from two primary issues: the lack of applicant representation at the meeting and unresolved concerns regarding sewer service and access to the property. ## DP 2008-11: Louis Hillenmeyer Property (AMD) [timestamp: 1:11:10] The board discussed and reapproved the development plan for the Louis Hillenmeyer Property with amendments. Key participants in the discussion included Bill Sallee, Joey Svec, Carolyn Plumlee, and Bill Wilson. The plan was reapproved with three new conditions: - Updated addressing requirements - Documentation of Water Quality approval The discussion resulted in approval of the amended development plan. ## ZDP 2009-86: Bryan Property The council discussed and reapproved the Bryan Property development plan (ZDP 2009-86) during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:22:24]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Bill Sallee, Tom Lambden, Frank Penn, and Will Berkley. **Discussion and Outcome** Staff clarified the intent to reapprove the previously certified plan. Following this clarification, the plan was reapproved with two conditions attached to the approval. ## PLAN 2015-60CE: Emerge Development, LLC A minor subdivision plan for Emerge Development, LLC was presented for discussion and approval. The agenda item was addressed approximately 1 hour and 37 minutes into the meeting. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Bill Sallee, Justin Drury, Benjamin Clements, Bill Wilson, and Karen Mundy. **Outcome** The plan was approved with nine conditions. Notably, condition 6 regarding utility easements was excluded from the approval requirements. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit Performance bonds were addressed during this agenda item, with Mike Cravens and Bill Wilson leading the discussion [timestamp: 1:37:50]. The discussion resulted in a motion to release and call upon performance bonds. The motion was approved with no objections raised. ## Election of Officers The Planning Commission proceeded with the election of officers during this agenda item. [timestamp: 1:40:35] **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Carolyn Plumlee, Frank Penn, and Will Berkley. **Action Taken** The nominating slate for Planning Commission officers was approved. Mike Owens was elected as Chairperson. **Outcome** The election of officers was approved as presented. ## Delegation of Secretary's Duties The Secretary's duties were delegated to the Director of the Division of Planning and staff. [timestamp: 1:41:06] Key speakers on this matter included Will Berkley and Bill Wilson. The delegation was approved. ## Staff Items Bill Sallee provided a brief informational update during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:42:12]. The remarks included a reminder about an upcoming work session and an encouragement for attendees to enjoy the sun. No debate or concerns were raised during this portion of the meeting. The item was presented as informational in nature, with no formal action or decision required. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by Mike Cravens after all agenda items had been addressed. [timestamp: 1:42:50] --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of minutes from April 30, 2015, and June 11, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of PLAN 2015-64F: The Grange Estates (Lots 8, 10, 12 & 17) (AMD) to July 23, 2015 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Consent Agenda items: PLAN 2015-58F and DP 2015-51 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PLAN 2015-59F: Hamburg Place Farm (Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169) - **Motion** — passed: Approval of waivers to Articles 6-2(a) and 6-6(b) of the Land Subdivision Regulations for PLAN 2015-59F - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of DP 2015-55: Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) & Burke, Hockensmith & Maggard Property, Unit 5 (AMD.) to August 13, 2015 - **Motion** — passed: Reapproval of DP 2008-11: Louis Hillenmeyer Property (AMD) with three conditions - **Motion** — passed: Reapproval of ZDP 2009-86: Bryan Property with two conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2015-60CE: Emerge Development, LLC with nine conditions (excluding condition 6) - **Motion** — passed: Release and call of performance bonds - **Motion** — passed: Approval of nominating slate for Planning Commission officers - **Motion** — passed: Delegation of Secretary’s duties to Director of Division of Planning and staff --- ## Full transcript Drive over to Kroger, we'll drop off there at the door, and then my daughters and I will hang out there in the bus in the parking lot. As individuals are coming out of the bus, we swing back around by the front door, pick them up, they get back on the bus. We usually have a crate system on the bus in the back. We've got some storage area. That way they can put their groceries, keep them separated. Then once we get back over to Christian Towers, we help them offload and get them back inside. We can actually pull right up to the awning if the weather's bad. So it's really a great setup for us and for them because for them, they're able to go pick up the groceries for us. We're able to fellowship and just get to hang out with some folks that we might not have been able to meet otherwise. So one of our ideas, and you embraced this so quickly, was there a concern that you had? Because we hope that other churches or people in our community might be able to step forward. There are about five other senior subsidized apartment complexes in our community, and they all lost this grocery bus that was available to them. So being a church and being a business and being into working with the people in the community, did you have any concerns? This was actually a ministry dream. I mean, everything is set up and ready to go. It's an opportunity where there is need that churches can meet. As far as time investment, it's not a huge time investment. And the great thing of it is we get to meet folk. I get the opportunity to hear needs that are going on, not only within the community of Christian Towers, but I get to talk with these individuals personally. If they need to, they can share with me a prayer request. If they need to, they can say, hey, come pick me up. I'd like to come and be a part of what's going on at your church on Sunday or on Wednesday nights or some other ministry outreaches that are going on there. And it's just, for us, it's a win-win all the way around. We get to connect. They get an opportunity to have this particular need met. So for us, there was absolutely no negative side to this whatsoever. Wonderful. And that was so great to hear. So Peggy and I said, you know what, we'll let them test it for a while and we'll talk to them again. And now we are ready to kind of launch a program such as this throughout the community. So if your church, your neighborhood, your association, your business wants to be involved in something like this, you can either contact Peggy's office with the 11 District Council person, or you could contact my office directly, 258-3806. And I thank you so much for all of the work you do on behalf of our seniors. Glad to do it. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much for watching Levitt District Council Comments. Thank you. Hi, I'm Councilmember Jennifer Massadi to talk to you today about Clay's Mill Road. Clay's Mill Road is a 3.7 mile arterio that connects Harrodsburg Road to Twain Ridge. Today with me we have Keith Lovin from the Department of Engineering who is our project engineer discussing Phase IIc Wellington and Claes Mill intersection. Good morning Keith. Good morning. Tell me about this intersection, what we're doing here, the projected timetable and just a little bit of background on the project. This is the third section of the Claes Mill Road project. Which is IIc, correct? Which is IIc. We completed what we called Section 2A in 2012 and then we did Section 2B which was the Manowar intersection in 2013 to 2014. So this is just a continuation of the project. And those sections are all completed at this time? Correct. And we're following the same cross section. We're doing curb gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes. We're adding additional turn lanes at the Wellington intersection and the remaining part of it is just going to be a three lane section. Can you be a little bit more specific because this is a very busy intersection. Do you know how many cars go through this intersection daily? Currently, we've got about 16,000 to 18,000 cars going through the intersection daily. We are projecting in another 10 to 15 years, we'll have 20,000 to 25,000. Okay. And so as far as a motorist, what are things that are important here at this intersection? Well, right now, the project is under construction, and this is the work zone. So the motor needs to go slower and we've also put up no left turns for the Clays Mill Road traffic. We are not allowing any left turns onto Wellington because what happens when people wait to turn left, they're backing traffic up. So all they have to do is go to the next intersection and then they can make their left turn. I guess I would ask you, what was the reasoning behind doing this intersection? Why did we widen it? There's always been a lot of backup at this intersection and we're adding additional lanes to get people through the intersection during the... And I guess the big question is, when do you anticipate this will be finished? We are projected to finish the 1st of January of 2016. So I guess the takeaway would be to be patient. To be patient, yes. And this will happen and it'll be a much improved intersection. Absolutely. What about pedestrian-wise as far as this intersection? Pedestrians, we're making improvements for the pedestrians. Of course, we'll have sidewalks on the whole length of the project. We're enhancing the intersection. We're going to add the enhanced crosswalks. We've got ped signals. So that's going to make the environment for the pedestrian much better than it is currently. Anything else you'd like to add about this intersection or the project in general? Sure. One of the things that I would like people to know is we are rebuilding the box culvert underneath Claysmo Road, and that takes a lot of time, and that just happens to be at this intersection. So this work... That's why we see all the large pipes and all the large and heavy equipment. Right, and we're doing concrete work, and so that's going to take several months. So we're still going to be at this intersection until September or October, so I know a lot of people are curious about that. But once that's done, the project will basically be finished. We're adding landscaping like we've done on the other projects. Trees and shrubbery, that type of thing? Yes. Okay. So we're making this a residential corridor that will accommodate. Keeping the residential character, obviously. Right. Well, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. And up next, we'll talk with Dowell Hoskins-Squire, our director of traffic engineering. I'm here with Dowell Hoskins-Squire with traffic engineering, and we're going to talk a little bit further about this intersection at Clay's Mill in Wellington and the project itself. Welcome, Dowell. Thank you. So tell us a little bit about this intersection itself, the signalization, what traffic engineering is doing in reference to this intersection. Sure. As with any construction job, we attempt to minimize traffic delays. And so we have made signal timing modifications. When we made the initial signal timing modifications, that didn't solve the congestion issues on Clay's Mill. And so we took another look at it. And that's when we determined that we thought if we eliminated the left turns onto Wellington Way, that would reduce delay on the Clay's Mill approaches. Unfortunately, that's inconvenient for some people, but I think if they realize they can just simply go up to Keithshire and take a left, they can really get to the roundabout to Reading Road without much additional delay, and it saves travel time on Clay's Mill tremendously by eliminating those left turn movements. So traffic, of course, that's the reason why we're redoing this whole intersection, because of the capacity, from what I understand. What type of signalization are you going to do for the rest of Clay's Mill Road to tie in with this? Right. So there's going to be two new signals on Clay's Mill, and they will be mast arms, so the cantilever arms, which is basically a bigger signal structure. It allows traffic engineering. It allows easier maintenance. There's no exposed wiring to the elements, and it allows for better signal head visibility. The signal heads are rigidly mounted to the arms as opposed to swinging in the air with the span wire. So ultimately, how will you determine how this intersection will work? Sure. Typically, we take turning movement volumes, a volume count, and so then we will do the signal timing plans based on the volume. So based on the turning movement volumes and the through volumes, typically we have anywhere from five to seven to, in some intersections, nine different timing plans that run in a day. And so they run different timing plans for the morning peak, the midday peak, the p.m. peak, and then we've got several. We've also got off-peak plans. So that's what we'll do in advance of the construction opening. The word you kept on saying was timing. People don't like to wait at stoplights. And so can you tell me, are we looking at a one-minute stop time, a two-minute stop time? Do you have any idea? Can you project that yet? I would say typical cycle lengths run 120 to 180 seconds. And so that's the time to serve every single approach. And so the longest anyone should wait should be some portion of that 120 seconds. So no one should wait over two minutes unless during the peak hour, sometimes you may not make it through, you know, I guess the green light on your if you're sitting in a queue, you may not make it through the first green light. And that would be you would sit through an entire signal cycle before you get another chance to go. So in the peak hour, I mean, you may have some delay, but I think that should be expected. And, you know, we can't design roads so that so that there's no queuing any time of the day. Right. So will we have just a dedicated left turn lane in arrows, or how is this going to function? I believe there is dedicated left turn lanes, and so we would have a protected left turn phase associated with those alternates. So I'm thinking left lane going south onto Wellington will be a left-hand designated turn lane? I believe so, yes. And then you'll have a left-hand turn lane coming off Wellington going onto Clay's Mill? Yes. And then another right-hand turn lane coming off of Wellington, I mean, sorry, Clay's Mill going north onto Wellington, correct? I believe so. I'm not sure. I think the typical section is going to be a five-lane section. So there will be additional through capacity, I guess. And so I'm not sure if there will be a right-turn lane there. But regardless, it shouldn't be difficult to make that right-turn movement. I'm a daily walker. I cross this intersection probably three or four times a week, and it's difficult to cross. Are you going to address that as far as pedestrian crossing and safety? Yeah, absolutely. Pedestrian safety has been one of my missions since I got here in Lexington. and there will be enhanced crosswalk markings at the intersection. There will be countdown pedestrian signals at the intersection. So pedestrian safety is critical, and we're working towards that countywide. What I find, even though there is signalization and there are crosswalks, people just don't pay attention a lot to pedestrians, and that's real scary if you're trying to navigate crossing a very busy street like this. Is there anything that can be done to enhance people's awareness of pedestrians trying to cross? As part of our pedestrian safety working group, which is a pedestrian safety effort within the urban county government, enforcement and education is one of the seven areas that we're working towards improvement in. And so we're going to be coordinating with the police in those areas to try to encourage drivers to yield to pedestrians, which is the state law, but just to encourage adherence to that because it's unsafe for pedestrians. And it's a systemic problem all over Lexington, not just at this intersection. I agree wholeheartedly. I think it just, again, the word patience, we've been talking about a lot. If people have a little bit of patience and pay attention to what they're doing as far as their driving habits, that's the key here. Thank you so much, Dowell. We'll be right back. You're welcome. I'm back with Lieutenant Bacon of the Lexington Police Department. And, Lieutenant, we're here today at the intersection of Wellington Way and Clay's Mill Road. And there are some enforcement issues I'd like to talk about, specifically the left-hand turn lane coming south onto Wellington. Yes. A couple weeks ago the subcontractors in traffic engineering put up no left turn signals from Clay's Mill onto Wellington Way. And the reason for that was a vehicle trying to turn left onto Wellington Way from Clay's Mill would sit at the light for several minutes causing a long backup on Clay's Mill. So they've put up the no left turn signals to prevent that backup and to prevent collisions. So has that been effective? It has been effective. But unfortunately, people are so accustomed to turning left onto Wellington Way, they're not following the traffic control devices and they're making that left turn. So we've put officers in the area for the last couple weeks doing enforcement, citing them for disregarding that traffic control device. You're telling me if a motorist takes a left from Clay's Mill Road on to Wellington, they are being sighted? Correct. And they've put up message boards as advance warning to notify motorists that they can't make that left turn, as well as additional signs indicating no left turn. I would think that not only for vehicular movement, pedestrian safety has got to be an issue here as well because of all the construction happening and just the amount of traffic trying to get through the intersection intersection that used to be able to get through but now can't because of the construction. Is that true? That is true and there are there are pedestrians that cross in the area and we'd like to warn the motorists to just be cognizant of that and give the pedestrians the right-of-way. If they're in the crosswalk they have the right-of-way to to cross the street and the the motorists need to yield to them. And obviously this is not something new. I mean this intersection one of many throughout Lexington that's being under construction. And I would say that what you're telling me today is true for all these intersections. People need to be patient. People need to be cognizant of what they're doing. And they need to pay attention to the police because obviously if they don't, the result is they get ticketed, correct? Correct, yeah. So we ask people that if they know they're going to be driving in the area of Clay's Mill, consider alternate routes. There are other ways to get to Wellington. If you're inbound on Clay's Mill, you can turn onto Beth Lane. Or if you're going outbound Clay's Mill, you can turn onto Keyshire. And both those routes will get you to where you want to go. One of the issues when they were widening the road was that it was a small residential corridor, 35 miles per hour. And now with the expansion, the amount of traffic and the speed has increased. Do you find that's true? We get a few speeding complaints, but right now there's so much congestion due to the construction. it's difficult to speed in the area. But as soon as the widening project is completed, that will be something we'll be looking at too, is doing more enforcement on Clay's Mill for speeding. And that's one thing as a council member that we're really cognizant of is the amount of speeding that happens in our neighborhoods and on our arterials. And I'm assuming you all have to be very vigilant all the time because I know in my office it's one of the main complaints that we get is neighborhood speeding, especially, as I said, in the neighborhoods or on the arterials. Would you agree with that? Correct. Especially now with school being out, more kids in the neighborhoods and playing, just to warn the motorists to be aware of that and slow down in the neighborhoods because now we have more traffic traveling these side roads and through the neighborhoods because of the traffic control devices that we've put in place here. If there's one last thing you can leave, a message to the public, what would you say as far as this intersection and any other intersection that's under construction in Lexington? or just basically traffic in general? Just be aware of all the construction projects and leave the house a little bit early if you know you're traveling in the area. And if you can, consider alternate routes to avoid the construction. It might be five or ten minutes out of your way, but it might get you there quicker. As a walker, I walk this intersection and cross it a lot. What I see is a lot of texting and a lot of people on the phones. I'm assuming you find that as well in your job every day? We do. What do we need to do about that? Put the phone down. Exactly. It's not that important, is it? It's not that important. If you have to, pull off the side of the road or into a parking lot and make that phone call or make that text. But while you're driving, just put the phone down. Because the consequences are very grave, aren't they? Absolutely. And certainly public safety is our number one priority. Thank you so much, Lieutenant Bacon. All right. Thank you. I would just like to talk a little bit about pedestrian safety. I know that this is a very highly walked area because there's several parks that are adjacent to this intersection. And with me, I've got a Stonewall resident. And tell me, do you do a lot of walking in the area? Actually, I do. I enjoy walking to the Wellington Park area, so I have to cross Clay's Mill and Wellington to get there. And I like to go as often as I can. Do you find it a challenge to make this cross? Yes, I do. I find it a challenge mostly because a lot of the drivers aren't paying attention to what's happening at the intersection. And so if you're not really aware as a walker, you are at risk. There's going to be some increased signalization and some crosswalks and some pedestrian safety put in. Do you think that will be a help? I think that will be a great help for those who want to take advantage of the park and the women's garden and the dog park as well. We're so fortunate to have those parks and those trails in our area, and we always want to encourage more pedestrian walking, and not only good for health-wise, but it's just good to take advantage of what we have here. I guess I would be concerned about when you're crossing, do you feel safe? Not during busy traffic hours, I do not. But you really have to, especially when you're crossing, it's the right turn. People that are not yielding to the walker, when they're making a right turn, that's where most of the dangerous crossing happens. Okay, so I guess, again, that we've talked about throughout this whole program is driver attention. Right. Driver having some patience. And just being aware of what their surroundings are. The pedestrians, the signals, the crosswalks. And hopefully, if all that's taken into consideration, we'll have a good, safe intersection. Yes. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. And keep walking. You're welcome. Thank you for watching today's Council Comment. If you have any further questions or suggestions, you can email me at my office, jmasadi at lexingtonky.gov. I appreciate you watching today. Be safe, be attentive, and have a good day. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Hi, I'm Paul Chartier. Thanks for tuning in to Heart of Gold. We have Brooks Lundy, who is Miss Tennis in Lexington. How kind. You have been doing this, organizing tennis tournaments and doing a lot of great things with tennis for how many years? Probably about 18 years. And how did you get started in it? I started out as a volunteer at the Kentucky Bank Tennis Champion. ¶¶ Planning Commission of July 9th. And first off, do we have some minutes? Minutes for approval? Mr. Chairman, I move the approval of the minutes of April 30, 2015, and also of June 11, 2015. Okay, we have a motion for approval and a second. Everybody vote. That motion carries. All right, next, do we have any postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Cravens? Yes. Planning Commission? Al Gross, the A Partners, on page 2. Item C, Plan 2015-64F, the Grange Estates. Request a two-week postponement to give the Parris Pike Corridor Group a chance to review the... All right, we have a request for a postponement. Anybody in the audience? Okay, we'll take a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of 2015, day 64F. What date will that be? July 23rd. July 23rd meeting, two-week postponement. Okay, we have a motion to second for postponement. Everybody vote. It's duly postponed. Thank you. Okay, any other postponements? Okay. All right. We'll go on to our consent agenda. There are some plans that qualify for that. There are, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the commission, good afternoon. We have good news and bad news this month with the consent agenda. The bad news is it's a very short consent agenda. The good news is your meeting agenda is a pretty short agenda. So we'll get through this very quickly today. There are two plans on your consent agenda. The commission can consider for approval at this time, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee at their meeting last week. The first is the very first plan at the bottom of page one on your agenda, item A, plan 2015-58F. This is an amended final record plat for Lancaster and Kaiser property, lots two and three. This is also known as property for the no-lie CDC. This property has an address of 156 York Street. The other item on your consent agenda is a final development plan. It appears on page 2, item A of your meeting agenda. This is DP 2015-51, the Sebastian Property Unit 2. This property has an address of 2826 Leestown Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Commission can consider approving these items on your consent agenda, as has been recommended by the committee, unless a member of the commission, an applicant, or a member of the audience would ask to have them removed from the consent agenda to allow for further discussion. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody on the commission wish to? I don't think so. Anybody in the audience? All right. Let's move the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move the consent agenda be approved. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Everybody vote. Consent agenda is passed. All right. All right. Next, we'll get into our regular agenda. Mr. Chairman, the first discussion item appears on the top of page two, and we'll set up and be ready to present that to you in just a moment. Thank you. Very well. Good afternoon. Today we're looking at record plat for 2015-59. It's called Hamburg Place Farm, Tuscany Unit 1, Lot 169. This property is located over in the Hamburg area. We're looking off. We have Sir Barton Way, Old Rosebud, and Pascali Place. This is where the development plan came through for the YMCA. They're coming in. They need to record this lot. to be able to transfer. With that, our first aid conditions are typical sign-offs from different agencies in the government. We just have a couple cleanup conditions, and we want to make sure that this property is developed with the development plan that's been approved, and we also ask for cap approval. for that. I'm going to also allow you to tell Martin to speak on the waiver. Any questions? I'm sorry. Any questions? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, as Ms. Galt stated, there is a waiver associated with this particular plat that you see before you today. And again, this is the property in question at the intersection of Old Rosebud and Pasquale, YMCA, that is currently under development here. The final development plan that was approved by this body has been certified. You may have noticed they had a grand opening ceremony and that sort of thing. So construction is underway. There's two relevant factors associated with the waiver. This one right here is a FEMA floodplain, and this is the primary physical factor on this site that impacts the sewer. If you'll put that up on the screen, please. So you have 100-year FEMA-regulated and locally regulated floodplain in this area. we've put up a exhibit for you that shows the sewer lines that exist around this development the issue with the sewer line that is on the opposite side of the floodplain and you can see that in the exhibit and i don't know if the color shows up but that's a purple line that's a force main on the other side of the creek that would right there thank you that was the original intention for this property to be sewered. And in fact, they submitted plans to engineering showing that. During the course of investigating what it was going to require to do that, they have changed their minds and they want to hook into the sewer that is to the north of the property. And that's in green on two, no, the other side, other side of the creek, They're up north. That line right there. The exact option they're going to select, I'm sure the applicant can explain, but that's a gravity line, and that's a much simpler and easier construction project for them. That property is not developed. We anticipate at the time it is developed, it is R3. It will be developed similar to the Milano place above it in a cul-de-sac with single-family homes. We anticipate there may be some other type of homes to go in there, but again, they'll have to deal with the sewer easement when they develop that property. So that's the direction they wish to go with the sewer. The other element that impacts this waiver request, of course, as important as the physical one is, they need to get their financing in place. and so they need to have the plat go to record so they can secure their financing. And as you're no doubt aware for an organization like the YMCA, that's a very important consideration. So they are here today requesting approval of the waiver. Staff is recommending approval of the waiver as well, subject to only one condition, which is that there shall be no zoning compliance permit issued for the YMCA until that line, of course, has been completed. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. Are there any questions? All right. Thank you. The applicant. Yes. Good afternoon. Kevin Phillips with Enders Engineering. Tom is correct. Originally, this was proposed to be sewered to the main that is on the opposite side of the creek. After some investigation, there's a huge bit of paperwork that's involved in doing open cuts through the FEMA flood zone, of course. So they have now arranged with Haymaker, who owns that adjacent piece of property that lies between the YMCA property and the sewer that's on the upper side of that sheet you're looking at there. So Haymaker's going to have them cross that property to get to that sewer without crossing the creek. It would be a much less arduous ordeal for them. It is under construction. The grade work is underway, so the sewer construction will be integral to that construction that's happening right now. So it's really just a matter of timing. Certainly before the YMCA is fully constructed and open, the sewer will be in place and operational. So I think that's all I have to add. The YMCA does own this property now, and they are just securing financing for it. They've owned it since 2006 or 2007, so a good number of years. just now, obviously, developing it. But certainly if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Go ahead, Frank. Kevin, is this sewer line that you're going to connect through the northern part of the property, is it going to serve the whole property or just the YMCA? For now, obviously, it'll be a public sewer main extension, because it's going to be an 8-inch line that's coming from that existing sewer. So it would be available to the public to use. Anybody in between would be available to use that. So the answer is that whole piece of property would be sewered that way. Yeah, the vacant piece of property that lays between the YMCA and the developed residential neighborhood, which is to the north on that San Milano place. Yeah, so the vacant land between there, I guess 2625, that would be served by the sewer as well. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Commission have anything? Okay. Let's have a motion. We're going to need one for the development plan, and then let's just take a separate one for the waiver. Yes. I have to abstain from this vote. Hit the appraisal. I didn't realize that this was still pending. The purpose of the plat initially was this lot was created and purchased from a non-building minor plat. Haymaker had conveyed this to the YMCA a number of years ago, and it was a non-building plat. So really the primary focus of this plat was to simply remove the non-building restriction. They didn't realize it was in place when they arranged for this financing. So obviously when the title got run and this sort of came to life, they're like, oh, wait a minute. We need to get this restriction removed before we can finance the deal. So that was the initial push, and then the sewer was sort of an accessory item to get cleaned up as well. All right, very well. Mr. Chairman, if we're ready, I'll do the motion. Let's have it. I move for approval of Plan 2015-58F with the 15 provisions as noted by staff. Second. Okay, we have a... Mr. Chairman, I think. Yes, sir? 59. Okay, 59. I'm sorry. Thanks for the correction. All right, we have a motion for approval. We have a second. We have a corrected number. Everybody vote when they can. That motion carries. Okay, can we have one for the waiver? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the waivers presented by staff on 2015-59F. Second. Okay, we have a motion for approval of the waiver and a second by Joe Smith. Everybody vote. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I believe the next item on your agenda appears on the top of page 3. Item B, DP 2015-55, an amended final development plan for the Bluegrass Business Park Lot 4. It's also known as Pemberton Farm and also a portion of the Burke, Hockensmith, and Maggard property, Unit 5. You will see on your agenda this plan has been recommended for postponement by your subdivision committee. It was also recommended for postponement by the technical committee and the staff. We do not believe the applicant is represented here today. I do see no representative from the applicant, so I think the staff would suggest maybe that you postpone this plan to your August 13th meeting. All right, very well. Can we get a motion? Carolyn? Move DP 2015-55 Bluegrass Business Park postponement by staff recommendation. Second. Okay, we have a motion to postpone. How long are you postponing? August. August. Okay. Motion to postpone. We have a second. Everybody vote. You're already voting. Okay. getting ahead of the chair all right motion carries Mr. Chairman, the next item on your agenda is the bottom of page 3, item C, DP 2018-11, the Lewis Hillenmeyer property. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 4550 and 4560 Nicholasville Road. Before presenting the plan to you, I'd like to put a couple of aerial photos on the overhead just to orient you to the location of this property. I don't think that's right. Subject property is on Nicholsville Road, a very short distance north of the county line with Jessamine County, and it has an address 4550 and 4560 Nicholsville Road. Those are two lots. I'm not sure. Thank you. south of South Point Drive and its signalized intersection with Nicholsville Road. The county line is just outside the photograph on the bottom. There is a school a short distance to the south, and in between the school and the subject property, a small animal veterinary clinic. Surrounding the subject property on the other two sides are portions of the South Point subdivision. This property has been known as the King's Garden Center for several years, And the other photo shows just a little close-up view of the same property from the same perspective. Hasn't single access to Nicholsville Road, no other access from either the subdivision or from the veterinary clinic property. There are a number of greenhouses and canopies in this area. There is permanent structure here and temporary structure at the time of the photograph in 2013 on the front of the property. Temporary structures are allowed to be on a property for up to 60 days, and more than that either requires a conditional use permit or that structure being added to the development plan. The development plan that's before you was approved by the Planning Commission in 2008 and shows many of the facilities we saw from the air. has the access point to Nicholsville Road, off-street parking generally in the front. It proposed an addition of a greenhouse of 2,800 square feet, and you can see from the photo that greenhouse has been constructed because this plan was certified later in 2008 after the commission approved it. It proposed two canopied areas here and here on the north side of the property in addition to those you can see in the photograph in this area. This crosshatched area is generally the area where they have their plant material that they're offering for the public. So the purpose of this plan was to add a greenhouse and allow the two additional canopies, the greenhouse of which has been constructed. Under Article 21-4F of your zoning ordinance, once this plan is certified, building permits can only be obtained for five years. And that is why this plan is back on your agenda today. The applicant now wishes to obtain other permits for the property. You can see on the bottom of page 3 the 10 conditions that were originally part of the Commission's approval, and as I mentioned in March of 2008, all 10 of those were satisfied. If I can ask you to turn to the top of the next page, the staff is recommending on this plan a re-approval of the plan subject to three conditions. The first would be approval of addressing by E-911. That is a normal plan requirement for any new development plan, and they have indicated to the staff they also wish to see as many plans, including minor plans, to make sure that the E-911 addressing is consistent throughout the community. The second is we're asking for an additional commission certification to be added to the plan to reference your consideration of this plan today. And then thirdly, a typical condition when we involve new construction documenting Division of Water Quality's approval. If, in fact, the only additions to the site are the two canopies, we don't anticipate that that will have any impact on the sanitary sewer. So that condition is mainly in case there is any internal square footage not yet built that would be subject to the permitting issue that I've explained to you. So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions about either the staff's recommendation or about this development plan on your agenda today. Any questions? Bill, you've got number seven approval street names and addresses per E911 staff, and then you've got over here on the other page, is it required both places? The first ten conditions the staff is not recommending because those ten have already been satisfied since the commission earlier approved. But those go away? Yes, sir. The three replace the ten. That's right. So we need a motion that says these three. Yes, sir. That's what the staff would recommend. Okay. I don't see anybody's name up here. Just who wants to make the motion. I think the representative is here for the plan. Oh, is he? Okay. I believe so. All right. Let's let the applicant speak then. We're about to prove it without him saying. Good afternoon. Joey Svek with Bayer Partners. Keep it short. Sweet. We agree with the three recommendations or three conditions here. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I move approval of DP-2008-11 Lewis Hillenmire property with the three recommendations of the staff. I second. Okay, we have a motion for approval and a second by Mr. Wilson. Re-approval. Re-approval. Everybody vote. That motion passes. Thank you. We're about to arm wrestle to see who gets to present this plan to you. The next plan on your agenda is the very next item, top of page 4, item D, ZDP 2009-86, the Bryant property. This property has an address of 1810 Bryant Road. And as per the other case, I'd like to orient you to the location with a photo, because I think the streets and the other buildings in the area will help get you locked into where this property is located. Thank you. Bryant Road is diagonal in this photograph. It is parallel to Manowar Boulevard here. This is a signalized intersection most everyone is familiar with with Sir Barton Way, extending off the photograph to the north, and Pleasant Ridge Drive, this location here. Bryan intersects here, and their newer section has been continued parallel to I-75 in this location. The subject property at 1810 is in this location here. It is immediately adjacent to a light industrial zone property where Monkey Joe's and some other indoor entertainment uses have located, and the Ashley Furniture Store in a B-3 zone at this location. So the subject property is vacant. It does have a very short bit of frontage to the rear along a new rail trail, a fairly new trail that has been constructed, which terminates at Manowar and goes through the middle of the Timber Creek subdivision and also is bordered by Andover further to the south. Timber Creek Drive is situated here, and there are homes along that street that do abut the rear of the subject property. This is a zoning development plan that was submitted in 2009 and approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the zone change of the property from AU, Agricultural Urban, to Business 3, Highway Service Business. And this development plan has frontage for the property on Bryant Road and, as I mentioned, a small amount of frontage along the rail trail, which parallels the rear line of the property. It proposed a single-access easement off of Bryant Road to be constructed to serve several parking areas, off-street parking areas. Hotel use was proposed on the front, and then various retail uses were proposed to the rear of the property with corresponding off-street parking. This is a preliminary development plan, and as such, it does not allow any building permits to be issued under the guise of the zoning ordinance. In fact, there's a note on here that says there will be no building permits issued until a final development plan is approved. Looking at your agenda, you can see it was approved with 16 conditions originally, and the plan was certified just before the close of 2009, and that meant it met all 16 of those conditions. Initially, the staff had some confusion with the submission because it was not just a letter of re-approval. We also got new prints of the plan. And when we started reviewing those prints, we determined that it is different from this version of the preliminary development plan that was certified. And so that put in the mind of the staff, are we being asked to re-approve a previously approved plan, or are we being asked to approve an amendment to that plan? And so that led us to recommend a few days ago a postponement of this plan. This came in last week, so those of you on the subdivision committee did not see this plan at your meeting last week. Since that time, we have communicated with the applicant and understood that we received that other print in error and it is their intention to reapprove the previously certified development plan. So with that in mind, the staff believes that this plan can be approved, or re-approved, I should say, by the commission. We did not prepare a revised recommendation for you because we have a model for that right above this item on the last plan we looked at. At the very top of page four, the staff recommended a re-approval of a plan with three conditions. Since this plan does not involve any building, there is no need for the CAP approval. that will come at the time of a final development plan for this property. And we understand from the engineer that may be in short order. That may just be a few months from now. But the staff would recommend a re-approval of the certified development plan with two of the same three conditions that we reviewed in the last plan. Those two being that the E911 staff be afforded an opportunity to re-evaluate and approve addressing for the property, especially given that there are multiple buildings proposed. That makes even more sense in this case. And then secondly, that this plan have a second Planning Commission certification added to it so that it can document your review and possible re-approval today. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission before you hear from the applicant on this plan. All right. Any questions? I'll say thank you. Thank you. The applicant, please. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Tom Lambden with Vision Engineering. We're in agreement with the new set of recommendations and would just ask for approval. All right. Thank you. Any questions? Yeah, I do. Frank. You mean a re-approval, don't you? A re-approval. Thank you for the correction. He's corrected me a couple times on that. Can you chair down there one more? What are you doing sitting there? All right. Thank you. Let's have a motion, I guess. Mr. Chairman, I move re-approval of ZDP 2009-86 Bryan property with the three conditions recommended by the staff. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Mr. Berkeley second. Everybody vote. And motion carries. It's officially re-approved. Thank you. I think I might have hurt Mr. Martin's feelings today. The last plan on your agenda appears on the bottom of page four. the staff is referring a minor subdivision plan to the Planning Commission for your consideration this afternoon. This plan is Plan 2015-60 CE, and this is titled Emerge Development LLC, and it involves property with an address of 412, 422, and 424 East 3rd Street. The CE notation refers to the fact that this is a consolidation and easement minor subdivision plan. In just a moment, I'll put those sections of the subdivision regulations on the screen so you can kind of see why the staff is referring this to you. First, again, I would like to use photograph to get you oriented to the building, and I would also like to hand out to you a site plan of the property that's before you. This property went to the Board of Adjustment in May of this year for dimensional variance, and that is somewhat the reason that this plan has been filed with us, and I'll explain that as well. Thank you. Thank you. The three lots are in the 400 block of East 3rd. This is looking at them from the south using our pictometry that we have access to. East 3rd is here. They're on the south side of that street between Race, which is a signalized intersection here, and Eastern Avenue, which is not signalized at its intersection with East 3rd. The three lots are in this location here. They are all currently vacant and have frontage not only on East 3rd, but also on Vlad's Alley at this location, although there is not a driveway access. Got the wrong point. Here's the alley, and here's their access to that right-of-way. Pavement in this area does cut through the entire block here between eastern and third. Have another photo looking just from another direction. This is looking from the west. So from this angle, we have East 3rd heading out of downtown in this direction. This is Ray Street, Eastern Avenue here. So the subject property is at this location. And this gives you a much better view of the alley that is here, serving the rear portion of the property. The Board of Adjustment site plan is driving this consolidation and easement plat. and this is a rendered version of that plan showing a reconfiguration of the three lots into more uniform lotting width. This variance that the Board of Adjustment approved is highlighted in green. It is not to any of the perimeter dimensions of the three multifamily buildings that were proposed on the lots, but rather the dimensions between the buildings themselves. The zoning ordinance requires five feet from a wall to a property line, and they asked for and were granted permission to build those walls three feet from the property line. Three feet is a significant number because the state building code will allow construction that close to a property line, whereas five feet, obviously, from the zoning ordinance standpoint is a more restrictive requirement. Go ahead. These are somewhat unusual from the staff's perspective for applications to the board, but these were renderings provided of the four-plex structures that were proposed on the subject property. And these should appear on the back of the handout that we gave you as well. So we have just a little bit more than usual of a picture of what is actually proposed on these reconfigured three lots. The consolidation plat proposes to even up the lot widths, as I mentioned, because the property at 412 is much larger than the other two lots. And it will allow for three more similar buildings to be constructed if the lot lines are moved. There's no issue with the consolidation plat. Could I ask you to put up the subreg section? Thank you very much. The consolidation plats, as you know, are subject to the review and approval by the staff. And as I mentioned, the staff had no issue with the proposal to move the property lines as were approved by the board and requested by the applicant. The reason the staff's referring this is regarding the parking and access easement that's proposed on the rear of the properties. Parking and access easements can be added because of an easement minor class of subdivision that the staff is also allowed to approve, but there is a limit in that the type of easement can only be on two or one lot. And once it reaches three or more lots, the staff is precluded from approving those. In this case, because of this shift in the property line from this location to this location, the access easement has to cross all three properties. And so the staff is not authorized to prove that. We debated how to proceed with this and thought the easiest, simplest, quickest way for the applicant was merely to refer this to the commission. because, as you can see at the bottom of that section, the Planning Commission must act to approve this type of easement. From the staff's perspective, and if you look at the site plan from the BOA, we have no issue with the creation of this easement because it matches the site plan that the board has approved. So the staff is in agreement with the creation of this easement. Because it does require the full Planning Commission review and action, we have provided a listing of conditions for you on the agenda, pretty typical of any subdivision. The first set are typical sign-off conditions from different LFUCG agencies. Condition number six is one to require the addition of streetlight easements and utility easements from the utility companies, number six. And I'll return to that one in just a moment. Number seven is, of course, our new condition for many plans for water quality's approval of the capacity assurance program requirements. The last three conditions can be thought of as cleanup type of conditions. We would like the Board of Adjustment approval date to be noted on the plat. Again, for anyone doing record searches years from now, that will be very helpful. Secondly, the addition of a note referring the date of the Board of Adjustments action. And then lastly, to add in the certification the ability to certify that you reviewed this plan as of today's date. As to condition number six, the standard utility easements along the new property lines would most likely be very more than six feet in width. There will be utilities available to all three lots. They're currently served by utilities. I think in reviewing and preparing to present this to you today, I think the staff would recommend you delete consideration of condition number six. We don't think there will be any issue with getting electric, sewer, all the typical utilities to this area because it is a fully developed area. It has two street frontages, and there's a large parking area in the back that can also accommodate utility extensions if they're needed. That should also be of help to the applicant in trying to get this plan wrapped up in a short timeline. So with that, I think the staff would recommend approval, that you approve this plat with the now nine conditions, deleting number six. Before the applicant speaks to you about their proposal, I'd be glad to answer any questions as to why we have referred this plan to you this afternoon. Mr. Sully, I have a question. Since these are going to be so close, there will be a requirement for firewall between these units, right? There will be fire separation requirements. I'm not sure if each individual building will have what's called a firewall in them. I'm not familiar enough with the building code to know if that's a requirement. I do know that if the building under the building code is closer than three feet to a property line, there are many more fire prevention requirements, maybe not rising to the level of a firewall, that have to be done to that structure to allow that. And so that's why they chose the three-foot separation. It's why in all of our zones that's the closest you can build a detached residence to a property line is three feet. But to technically answer your question, I can't stand here and tell you, yes, there will be a firewall in any of these buildings. I just don't know. It's required to have some sort of fire protection on the outsides of those walls. They'll have to drywall the outside, I guess. Okay. Any other questions? Questions? Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Good afternoon. Justin Drury with 2020 Land Surveying. Benjamin Clements with Emerge Development. We've reviewed the conditions and have no issue with those. To your question about the fire rating, the interior walls where we only have the three-foot side yard, those are fire rated walls on the exterior and the interior. Thank you. All right. Any questions of them? All right. Let's have a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of Plan 2015-60 CE, the Emerge Development LLC, with the nine conditions deleting number six recommended by the staff. Okay, we have a motion for approval. We have a second by Karen Mundy. Everybody vote. That motion carries. All right. Performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chairman. Can we do it next week? I feel honored to be able to do this. This is the first time Mike Cravens hadn't done this since he relinquished the chair, so I feel very honored to be able to do this. I move for release and call of the bonds. I second. Okay, we have a motion for approval of release and call of bonds and second. Everybody vote. That carries. All right, I guess we're down to a collection of officers. We have the slate. I guess I can read the slate. Chairperson, this is by your nominating committee. Chairperson Mike Owens, Vice Chairperson Mike Craven, Secretary Will Berkley, and reluctantly parliamentarian William Wilson. That's the slate. And I guess at this time I could ask if there are any nominations from the floor. Not seeing any. I'm going to close the nominations. Y'all let Carol make the motion. And, um, okay. Is there any discussion, any more discussion on this? Mr. Chairman. Yes. I have no intention of not voting for this wonderful slate, but I would like the record to note that I do feel like that it's important that when we present slates that we remember that there is term limits, and although we have the right to override that, I do think it's important for a variety of members of the commission to be able to have the opportunity to serve the honor of serving as officers. I think it's good for the commission, and I think it's good for public perception. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the job that the current members have done, nor do I anticipate that there will be any problem with those. that have been nominated. I do feel like, though, that we need to sort of regroup sometimes and give people an opportunity to serve. It's real easy for us to sort of get into a habit, and I think it's important as a public commission that we sort of remember that next time around. All right. Very well. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the nominating slate. Second. Okay, we have a motion to approve the nominating slate. Are you approving the election of these officers? Yes. Okay, so you're moving to elect these officers. The slate as presented. Okay, very well. Second by Frank. Everybody vote. They are duly elected. And next we have the delegation of the Secretary's duties. Mr. Berkeley, would you want to delegate some of your duties? I would be agreeable to that. Okay. I would encourage you to do that. Not so far as attendance now. You still have to attend. All right, so we have a motion for the delegation of secretary duties. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Everybody vote. We're faster than the machine. All right. Anything by the staff? Mr. Chairman, just one very brief item. I want to remind the commission members you do not have a work session next Thursday. We understand the sun will be out that day, and we would encourage you to go outside and enjoy the sun. It may not be out until then, but at least it will be out that day. The next work session that you do have planned and scheduled is two weeks from today. So on the 23rd, we'll have your zoning items, regular meeting on the fourth Thursday, and your work session this month will be on the fifth Thursday of the month. Thank you. Very well. All right. Anything else to come before this board? If not, we can take a motion to adjourn. Motion carries. We stand adjourned. The End