# Planning Commission Subdivision - August 13, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 13, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3737 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3737?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-08-13 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 17,273 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 August 13, 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 addressed 10 agenda items related to various development projects and subdivisions. The Commission took 12 votes during the session and heard 6 public comments. Of the 10 agenda items considered, the Commission approved five projects: Grasmere Subdivision Unit 5, Anderson 2 Subdivision, NOLI CDC Corp. & Clifford Property, Hamburg East (Waterstone at Hamburg), and Electronics Park Parks Subdivision Unit 1 Lot 33. Four items were postponed: Copper Creek Subdivision, Masterston Station Center (Citation Village), Bluegrass Business Park Lot 4, and Leestown Office Park (AMD). One additional item, High Point Subdivision, was also postponed. ## Attendance **Present (23 members):** Mike Cravens, Carolyn Plumlee, Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Joseph Smith, Carolyn Richardson, Chris King, Bill Sallee, Barbara Rackers, Tom Martin, Cheryl Gallt, Kelly Hunter, Dave Jarman, Denice Bullock, Hillard Newman, Casey Kaucher, Pierre Jolibois, Captain Greg Lengal, Lieutenant Joshua Thiel, Tim Queary, and Tracy Jones. **Absent (3 members):** Patrick Brewer, Mike Owens, and Frank Penn. **Late:** None reported. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 12 votes, all conducted by voice vote with unanimous support. **Postponements to September 10, 2015:** Four items were postponed to the September 10, 2015 meeting: - Plan 2015-67P: Copper Creek Subdivision, motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 00:07:09] - DP 2015-38: Masterston Station Center (Citation Village), motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 00:08:19] - DP 2015-55: Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4, motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 00:09:26] - DP 2015-57: Leestown Office Park (AMD), motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 00:09:57] - DP 2015-30: High Point Subdivision, motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 01:34:28] **Approvals:** - Consent Agenda with Grasmere Subdivision removed, motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 00:16:15] - Plan 2015-68P: Grasmere Subdivision, Unit 5 with 15 staff conditions, motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 01:14:03] - Plan 2015-74F: Anderson 2 Subdivision with 23 conditions, motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 01:24:47] - Plan 2015-79F: NOLI CDC Corp. & Clifford Property with revised conditions, motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 01:33:04] - DP 2015-58: Hamburg East (Waterstone at Hamburg) with revised conditions and EAMP compliance finding, motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 02:05:07] - DP 2015-59: Electronics Park, Parks Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 33 with 12 revised staff conditions, motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 02:10:04] - Release of call bonds, motion by Joseph Smith, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 02:10:42] All votes passed unanimously with support from Mike Cravens, Carolyn Plumlee, Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Joseph Smith, and Carolyn Richardson. ## Public Comment Six speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, raising concerns about two primary development projects and related issues. **Grasmere Subdivision** Janet Cabanis spoke first [timestamp: 00:39:26], advocating for a 60-foot cul-de-sac rather than the proposed 50 or 54 feet. She cited fire department input and existing cul-de-sac sizes in the area, arguing that the larger size would improve safety, ease of access, and neighborhood character. Three additional speakers expressed concerns about the development's impact on the neighborhood. David Goodpastor [timestamp: 00:50:33] disagreed with the neighborhood's support for the project, arguing it violates the spirit of a 1985 resolution and maximizes density within zoning regulations. Tom DelBillo [timestamp: 00:52:13] echoed these concerns, noting that the development would alter the neighborhood's character and structure in an already densely developed area. Chris Norris [timestamp: 00:53:14] compared the proposed development to replacing three houses with six, contending that this approach degrades the neighborhood's character and integrity. **Other Matters** John Tucker [timestamp: 01:23:37] addressed a separate issue regarding fencing and agricultural use. He confirmed that an agricultural fence has been installed and expressed appreciation for the resolution of the matter. A speaker identified as Tom [timestamp: 02:03:50] requested enhanced landscaping along Man o' War Boulevard, citing both aesthetic and safety improvements. ## Contested Items **Grasmere Subdivision Cul-de-sac Size and Access** Neighbors voiced strong opposition to the proposed 50-foot cul-de-sac design for the Grasmere Subdivision. Community members advocated for a larger 60-foot cul-de-sac, citing safety concerns and the need to preserve neighborhood character. In addition to the cul-de-sac dimensions, residents raised concerns about the apron and barrier design associated with the access point. **Hamburg East Development Access Waiver** The Hamburg East development's access arrangement generated debate among decision-makers. The proposal involved a right-in, right-out access point on Polo Club Boulevard, which would deviate from the standard 800-500-500 access spacing rule. Staff and traffic engineering personnel supported granting the waiver for this access configuration. However, the issue resulted in a split vote, indicating disagreement among voting members about whether the waiver was appropriate given the established spacing standards. ## Copper Creek Subdivision The board discussed the Copper Creek Subdivision plan during this meeting [timestamp: 00:07:09]. Richard Murphy was the key speaker on this agenda item. The discussion centered on two primary concerns with the proposed subdivision plan. Board members raised issues regarding street alignment and the absence of tree protection areas in the development proposal. The applicant requested a one-month postponement to address these concerns. The board granted this postponement, allowing time for revisions to the plan before it would be reconsidered at a future meeting. ## Masterston Station Center (Citation Village) **Item 2015-38** The board discussed the Masterston Station Center project, also known as Citation Village, during this meeting. [timestamp: 00:08:19] Tom Martin addressed the board regarding this agenda item. **Status and Issues** The plan was postponed due to compliance questions with the Big-Box Design Guidelines and the Storm Water Manual. These regulatory concerns prevented the project from moving forward at this time. **Action Taken** The applicant requested a one-month postponement to address the outstanding compliance issues. The board granted this postponement request, allowing additional time for the applicant to resolve the design guideline and storm water manual questions before the project could be reconsidered. ## Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 **Agenda Item 2015-55** The board discussed a proposal for Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 [timestamp: 00:09:26]. Tom Martin presented the item to the board. The plan was postponed due to unresolved issues affecting the project. Specifically, concerns were raised regarding sanitary sewer service and access to future lots. These outstanding matters prevented the board from moving forward with approval at this time. The applicant requested a one-month postponement to allow time to address the identified issues. The board granted this request, deferring further consideration of the proposal to a future meeting. **Outcome:** Postponed ## Leestown Office Park (AMD) The board discussed the Leestown Office Park proposal, with Tom Martin presenting on the matter [timestamp: 00:09:57]. The primary issue preventing approval was the status of parking relocation, which remained unresolved at the time of the meeting. The applicant requested a one-month postponement to allow additional time to address the outstanding parking concerns. The board granted this postponement request, deferring further consideration of the project to a future meeting date. ## Grasmere Subdivision, Unit 5 **Identifier:** 2015-68P The Grasmere Subdivision, Unit 5 proposal was discussed and approved with 15 conditions [timestamp: 01:14:03]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Richard Murphy, Rory Cayley, Janet Cabanis, David Goodpastor, Tom DelBillo, and Chris Norris. **Approval and Conditions** The plan received approval subject to 15 conditions, including: - A 60-foot cul-de-sac - Sidewalk connection to Man o' War - Tree protection areas **Public Comments** Public comments during the discussion focused on three primary areas of concern: - Safety - Neighborhood character - The apron and barrier **Outcome** The proposal was approved. ## Anderson 2 Subdivision The Anderson 2 Subdivision (Agenda Item 2015-74F) was discussed at approximately [timestamp: 01:24:47]. **Key Speakers** Richard Murphy and John Tucker participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The subdivision plan was approved with 11 conditions. **Conditions and Requirements** The approval included the following conditions: - Floodplain clarifications - Tree protection measures - Access easement findings **Applicant Confirmation** The applicant confirmed compliance with fencing requirements as part of the approval process. ## NOLI CDC Corp. & Clifford Property The plan for NOLI CDC Corp. & Clifford Property was discussed and approved with revisions [timestamp: 01:33:04]. **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and the applicant participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Discussion and Revisions** The applicant acknowledged an oversight regarding the plan's original conditions. Following discussion, the plan was approved with revised conditions that included: * Deletion of a blanket utility easement * Documentation of Capacity Assurance Program approval **Outcome** The plan was approved with the revised conditions in place. ## High Point Subdivision The High Point Subdivision proposal was discussed as agenda item 2015-30 [timestamp: 01:34:28]. Tom Martin presented on this matter. The discussion centered on zoning concerns regarding the proposed use within a B-3 zone. These zoning issues prevented the proposal from moving forward at this meeting. The applicant requested a one-month postponement to address the zoning concerns, and this request was granted. The item was postponed to allow time for further review and resolution of the zoning-related issues before the proposal could be reconsidered. ## Hamburg East (Waterstone at Hamburg) **Agenda Item 2015-58** The plan for Hamburg East (Waterstone at Hamburg) was presented for discussion and approval. [timestamp: 02:05:07] **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and Nick Nicholson were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Presentation and Approval** The plan was approved with revised conditions. The applicant emphasized compliance with the East Area Master Plan (EAMP) and community design standards throughout the discussion. **Revised Conditions** The approval included the following conditions: - A landscape exhibit - Architectural renderings - A waiver for right-in, right-out access **Outcome** The plan was **approved**. ## Electronics Park, Parks Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 33 The plan for Electronics Park, Parks Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 33 was presented for discussion and approval [timestamp: 02:10:04]. **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and Matt Carter were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Discussion and Conditions** The plan was approved with 12 revised conditions. These conditions included: - Correction of building floor area - Notation of easements **Outcome** The plan was approved. The applicant agreed with all 12 revised conditions presented during the discussion. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of Plan 2015-67P: Copper Creek Subdivision to September 10, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of DP 2015-38: Masterston Station Center (Citation Village) to September 10, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of DP 2015-55: Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 to September 10, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of DP 2015-57: Leestown Office Park (AMD) to September 10, 2015 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Consent Agenda with Grasmere Subdivision removed - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2015-68P: Grasmere Subdivision, Unit 5 with 15 staff conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2015-74F: Anderson 2 Subdivision with 11 conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2015-79F: NOLI CDC Corp. & Clifford Property with revised conditions - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of DP 2015-30: High Point Subdivision to September 10, 2015 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2015-58: Hamburg East (Waterstone at Hamburg) with revised conditions and EAMP compliance finding - **Motion** — passed: Approval of DP 2015-59: Electronics Park, Parks Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 33 with 12 revised staff conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of release of call bonds --- ## Full transcript I couldn't do it. I didn't have to do it. And I kind of let him take over, and it's been going well since then. I just decided one day that, you know, I don't want to live this way no more. It was a struggle in the beginning, you know, when I decided to make that positive change. It was a struggle because, you know, it kept pulling me back. It kept pulling me back, so it wasn't easy, and it was a process for me. You know, I had to start asking for help, you know, and I had to start actually applying the tools that were taught to me. And so that's what I did. I realized that my life is very valuable, not just to myself, but to somebody else. I wanted to stop. I knew I had to stop, but I couldn't stop. And I knew the only way I was going to stop was an intervention of some sort. and mine came in the form of the law. And when I went to jail, I finally took a deep breath because I knew it was over for me. I knew I could finally get help. I had battled addiction since I was 20 years old, and by the time I was 30 years old, I just came to that split in the road where it was either die or get on the living and looking back, thank God I chose the right path. I'm engaged. I had my first child due in June, Christopher. I've already purchased nearly 2,000 diapers. That's what I've been investing money in, not in the stock market, but in diapers. I'm just so excited to have an opportunity to have him in my life after everything I've been through. Truly blessed. You can't force anyone to get help. You can't force anyone into treatment, but you can give your loved one good advice. And that's what I'd encourage the loved ones to do. The people that are going through these struggles, they want a way out, but they don't know how. They don't know how to receive the help that is offered to them. Have compassion. Try not to get so frustrated. And know that there is a solution to the problem. There is hope, and there is light at the end of the tunnel. first you have to stop using it's hard but it is so rewarding I smile now you know I'm the recovery process I mean you're overwhelmed by we are positively overwhelmed this has been so long in coming if you remember the project kind of started in 2007 and then the economy We kind of took a south turn. And then here we are, 2015. Going to move in in 2016. Nicholasville Road, we don't have room for another soul. I was there yesterday. We had line dance going on. There were 55 folks in an area much smaller than anything you see here. That is true. There's not a room there. As small as we are. I mean, no, I'm kidding. There will be a huge change in that respect. It sure will. We can currently offer about eight programs a day, eight different classes. Here on this site, about 24. Now, when we think about that as staff, we're like, oh, my gosh, this is so exciting. Oh, my gosh, this is so overwhelming, but in a great way. Well, I think you'll have people who want to be involved, people who will want to help, no doubt. That's correct. But just the ability to provide that or just see where interest takes folks. I mean, no kidding. That's exactly right. We get, I get an email about every week with a group that says, hey, we're so excited about the new senior center. Have you thought about this? We would love to do this, these kinds of things. So you should see that file that I have. See, that's exciting though. Thank goodness for council support because we got the budget to get a few more positions. Yeah. And we'll be able to program it and have adequate coverage and be able to really meet the needs of our growing senior population. Well, people continue to educate. That's correct. I think people continue to stay active or are now trying to stay more and more active. That's right. And certainly this building or this facility is set up around all of those opportunities. Absolutely. So let me give you a tour, right? Yeah, please. The room we're standing in now is two conference rooms. Okay. It could be one conference room. It could be two. It's going to be available to the community that already meets in our current center. Certainly. So they'll be able to come with us. New groups may be able to meet. We may hold a... ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Okay, we're going to go ahead and call this meeting to order for August 13th. and we'll begin with, I don't see any minutes, so we'll begin with any postponements or withdrawals. If you have one, come up front and present it. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page one, the very first item item a plan 2015 67p copper creek subdivision staff has recommended postponement and we're agreeable to that so we're requesting one month postponement on that very well anyone in the audience which wish to speak to this seeing none turn it over to the commission Mr. Chairman? Yes. I move for postponement of Plan 2015-Dade 6 and 7P Cooper Creek subdivision for one month. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for postponement. You may vote. It's postponed. Thank you. Thanks. yes Tom Mr. Chairman, members of the commission if we could direct your attention to page 3 pardon me, page 6 of your agenda under development plans at the bottom of the page, item B DP 2015-38 Master Citation Center also known as Citation Village This is property located at 2601 Leestown Road. We have received a written communication from the applicant for a one-month postponement on this development plan. All right, very well. Anyone wish to speak to that in the audience? Okay. Commission? Mr. Chair, I move postponement for one month of DP 2015-38 Masterton Station Center, Citation Village. Okay, we have a motion and a second to postpone. Everybody may vote. That's postponed for a month. Mr. Chairman, on page 7 of your agenda, item C, DP 2015-55, Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4, also known as Pemberton Farm, Burke, Hockensmith, and Maggard Property, Unit 5. This is property located at 2151 and 2221 Georgetown Road. We have received a written communication from the applicant requesting a one-month postponement. All right. Anyone in the audience here for that? Okay. Commission? Mr. Chair, I move for postponement for one month of DP 2015-55 Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4, Pemberton Farm. We have a motion, a second, to postpone. Everybody may vote. Okay, that's postponed. Mr. Chairman, on page 8 of your agenda. Keep it coming. Item E. DP 2015-57, Leastown Office Park amended. This is property located at 161 and 181 Leastown Center Way. We have received a written request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. All right. Anyone in the audience wish to speak for this postponement? All right. Commission? Mr. Chair, move postponement for one month of DP 2015-57 Lee's Town Office Park. Second. All right, we have a motion to second to postpone. Everybody move on. That's postponed. Any more, Mr. Martin? I thought maybe you'd shorten it up a little more. All right. So now we're down to the consent agenda, Mr. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. You do have a very lengthy agenda this afternoon, but I'm also pleased to tell you you have a very lengthy consent agenda item as well this afternoon. There are many more than 10 items on this agenda. The very first item on your consent agenda appears on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda. This is a preliminary subdivision plan that's been recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. It is Plan 2015-68P, Grasmere Subdivision Unit 5. This is for property located at 945 Bravington Way. Mr. Chairman, we do think that there are a number of citizens here that do wish to discuss this, but it did qualify for your consent agenda. There are a number of final subdivision plans you see on your consent agenda. The first is on page 2, item A of your meeting agenda, plan 2015-69F, Chesapeake Equine, Lot 1. This is a final record plat for property at 1024 Greendale Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, plan 2015-70, Thomas Communications, Unit 1A, Lot 70, amended. This is for property with an address of 2104 Winning Colors Way. On page 3, item C, this item is also on your consent agenda. Plan 2015-71F, the Harvey Property Lot 1, an amended final plat for property at 2200 Tracery Oaks Drive, and its companion on page 3, item D of your meeting agenda, plan 2015-72, the Harvey Property Lot 2 amended with the address of 4,500 Old Schoolhouse Lane. The next item on your agenda, page 3, item E, is also on the consent agenda. Plan 2015-73F, Eastland Parkway Subdivision, Track 1, Block B, Lot 2 amended. This is an amended final record plat for property located at 801 East New Circle Road. On page 4, item G of your meeting agenda, this is on the consent agenda. Plan 2015-75F, Watts Farm Tract 4, Lot 1 amended, for property at 435 Redding Road. On page 4, item H, this plat is on your consent agenda. Plan 2015-76F, a final record plat for Patchen Wilkes Townhomes, located at 1811 through 2053 Winchester Road. On page 5, item I, this plat is on the consent agenda as well. Plan 2015-77F Hamburg East Track 4, involving property at 2575 Polo Club Boulevard. The final plat on the consent agenda from your subdivision committee is page 5, item J, Plan 2015-78, Loudon Park, also known as Grifftown LLC and Bullhorn LLC, for property at 808.06 North Limestone. There is one plat that has been recommended for re-approval by your staff that appears on the consent agenda. It is located on page 6, item L of your meeting agenda, Plan 2013-96F, Hillenmeyer Property, West, and Greendale Hills, Unit 2. This property has an address of 2801 Sandersville Road. Flipping over to the second page of your consent agenda, there are three development plans also appearing on this agenda. The first is page 8, item D, DP 2015-56, an amended final development plan for the Bluegrass Business Park, also known as Pemberton Farm, lot 3A. This property is at 2201 Jaggy Fox Way. The next item is on page 9, item H, DP 2015-60, Lexington Mall property, lots 1, 6, and 9, an amended final development plan for property with addresses of 2349, 2399, and 2401 Richmond Road. And the final item on your consent agenda appears on page 10, item I of your meeting agenda, DP 2015-51, Sebastian Property Unit 2. This property is at 2826 Leestown Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Commission can consider approving all of these items, as has been recommended either by your subdivision committee or by the staff, unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask you to remove them from the consent agenda to allow further discussion. Again, we think there's at least one such plan today. Thank you. All right, let's find out. You all have heard the consent agenda. Is there anyone in the audience that wished to hear one of these pulled from a consent agenda so that we can have a hearing on it? Okay. And which one is it? That would be the first one, 945, Brady, and Grasmere subdivision. All right, so Grasmere subdivision. Any others? Very well. Okay, can, I guess we need a motion to approve the consent agenda, pulling that one plan. Mr. Chair, I move approval of the consent agenda, with the exception of Plan 2015-68P Grasmere Subdivision. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda, removing Grasmere Subdivision off of it. Everybody vote when you can. Very well, the consent agenda is passed. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is Plan 2015-68P, Grasmere Subdivision, Unit 5. It is a preliminary subdivision plan for property located at 945 Bravington Way. subdivision committee has recommended approval of this plan subject to the usual sign-off conditions down through number seven you see enumerated on your agenda moving on to condition eight the ask for addition of an existing barricade on the plan here there is an existing barricade here at the end of Bravington Way and Manowar Boulevard. Clay's Mill being down this direction, Gladman Way up here. We ask that they add the existing barricade onto the plan. Number nine, denote arterial screening details for lots three and four. This has to do with the arterial screening for the Manowar Boulevard corridor. Number ten, identify any proposed tree protection areas. and document compliance with tree canopy requirements there are identified tree protection areas here uh treed areas and we ask that they simply identify them on the plan correct number 11 correct bribington drive to read bribington way number 12 resolve the incursion of proposed cul-de-sac into the lots and revise the proposed lotting this stems from the existing property lines here at the right-of-way that's currently depicted and we we would request that these be modified into a more normal curvature around the back of the curve instead of running through the cul-de-sac as is usually seen on a cul-de-sac situation Number 13, resolve a 60-foot radius right away for the cul-de-sac in lieu of a proposed 50-foot radius. They show a 50-foot. It has been discussed and generally agreed, particularly with emphasis by fire and emergency services, that a 60-foot radius cul-de-sac would be more beneficial. 14, resolve the need for a stormwater retention facility. The question is, is there a need for a stormwater retention facility on this lot? Does the scope of this development warrant that? Number 15, resolve the need for sidewalk connection to Manowar Boulevard. There is an existing path from the end of Bribington way down to Manowar Boulevard. So the question is, would an access easement provide desirable access and connectivity from the end of Bravington Way down to the sidewalk system at Manowar Boulevard? So at this point, we'll take your questions and comments. All right. Are there any questions? I'm confused about the barricade. Where is that and what's its purpose? Yes, sir. The existing barricade is approximately here, sir, at the end of Brovington Way. It is a guardrail that has been there for some time. Right. And it is approximately where the cul-de-sac begins its radius. So are we, this says addition. what's the i apologize for being so dense but it seems like the wording is you're going to add a barricade to block off the cul-de-sac it is simply to depict or denote on the face of the plan apologies for the that but it is simply to denote or depict an existing barricade rail one that's there, okay, on the ground, here on the plan. That's what that is. I understand that. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Very well. If I may, I would like to just direct your attention back to that barricade very briefly. The barricade is placed there because that road was intended to connect to Manowar. There was a council resolution that permanently closed that connection, so the barrier was placed. Staff would like to see a pedestrian connection through that area to Manowar. It's currently a pedestrian route now. Now, in the course of a couple of discussions we had with the applicant and the neighborhood, I believe, share some of these concerns, this little area in here will be remaining right-of-way. That resolution directed the mayor to dispose of that property. That obviously has not been done, but that is a part of a resolution that was passed quite a few years ago, of course, about 25 years ago when this was terminated. On the cul-de-sac, the resolution was very specific and very interesting. It directed the Division of Engineering to design the cul-de-sac, and they did so. We have one. We've seen it. They found it. They don't know who did it anymore, but they designed a 50-foot radius. The staff has had discussions about a 60-foot radius in this area so that there could be a better turnaround and better emergency vehicle access through here. But the resolution itself required a cul-de-sac to be designed, and it is a 50-foot radius. I know there is some concern about this leftover right-of-way, but that will need to be disposed of in accordance with that resolution. I just wanted to give you that brief explanation because this is somewhat of a unique situation. And I would also just very quickly tell you that this is a remnant piece, and it is going to be known as Unit 6, not Unit 5. That's just a little housekeeping. All right, Mr. Martin, so this is the resolution here? Yes, sir. We passed that out there. It states 50 feet for the cul-de-sac. It directed engineering to design one, and that's what they designed. All right. Got something else? Recommendation. I'm sorry. Recommendation is for approval. Okay. All right. All right. Applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy, and Rory, Kaylee, and I are here today on behalf of the applicants, and they are here too. Steve Perry and Lloyd Morgan are in the back. They're hiding behind the little bar back there. You probably can't see them, but they're here. And we're pleased to be here today on this property. I just wanted to give you a little history of it, as you've got some already. This was a parcel that was owned by Ted Osborne, who was a big developer here some years ago, probably 30 to 40 or so years ago. and he owned a number of parcels around town and he passed away about two years ago and his estate has been conveying some of these parcels off and this was one of the parcels which has been conveyed off. As Mr. Martin and Mr. Jarman mentioned, there's an interesting history because 30 years ago in, well, 1983 when Manowar was being constructed, there was planned to be a connection with Bravington Way for better connectivity throughout the community. And as that actually got started to be constructed, the residents in the Bravington Way area objected to it, and the council passed a resolution in 1983 asking the state to stop paving and making this connection, and they put up the temporary barricade and they did that. And then two years later, in 1985, there was a second ordinance or resolution which the city passed which made the barricade permanent on there. And I think Mr. Martin passed that out to you and it said that at the time this developed, the developer is supposed to build a cul-de-sac, but they wanted the city engineering department to design it, which they did. and so here we are 30 years later here on this and with this property. The couple items here is, first of all, we do want to put a sidewalk connection in. We've had a number of meetings with the staff, and that sidewalk connection will probably be right here from the tip of the cul-de-sac onto the Manowar Boulevard sidewalk right there. so we do want to have that pedestrian connection. I want to emphasize, too, that this is not a zone change. This property is zoned R1C, R1C, which has, well, I'll put the R1C requirements up on the overhead here. The, it's been zoned R1C for, I think, at least 40 years. The area near us in Grasmere subdivision, which then adjoined Stonewall subdivision, the area around us is zoned R1C. If you consider the front part of Stonewall, if you consider Clay's Mill Road, the front part is zoned R1B, B as in boy, which has half-acre lots. And this area is zoned, and Grasmere is zoned R1C. But I put up the requirements of the R1C zone just to go over them here. We meet all the requirements of R1C. Minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. Minimum frontage is 60 feet. Minimum front yard is 30 feet. Minimum side yard is 8 feet. Minimum rear yard is 10 feet. Maximum height is 35 feet. So we meet all those requirements. We're not asking for any variances or any waivers. We can comply with those. And as you all know, these will be probably some of the largest lots on the market here in Lexington once they're approved because it's very rare anymore to find 60-foot wide lots. And I will have to tell you that some of the lots around us are even bigger than that. Some of them go 70, 75, 80, 90, 100 feet. We have 100-foot wide lots around us, but we are fully compliant with the R1C zoning categories. We are not subject to deed restrictions from the old Stonewall or Grasmere subdivisions, which may have imposed greater lot widths on those portions. We are not subject to any of those deed restrictions, but we are subject to all of your R1C requirements, and we meet every one of those requirements. So the one address, too, there's been a we've heard you all have heard this. And if you're on the subdivision committee, you heard it in the subdivision committee. If you're not, you didn't get to hear it. But there's we know there's been a rumor circulating in the neighborhood that this is a plan for townhouses. And I want to emphasize again, that is not correct. This is for six single-family, detached residential homes. These are not going to be inexpensive homes either. These are large lots, and we expect the houses to be large houses to go along with the large lots. Just a couple matters. I may need to get Rory to address the cul-de-sac with you more. We showed on our plan a 50-foot radius that is in keeping with what was designed by the City Division of Engineering back 30 years ago. We technically are showing a 54-foot radius because to maintain the wider utility strip, which I think is eight, nine feet through here, nine and a half feet around here, to maintain it equally to what is on the rest of Bravington Way. We need to maintain a wider utility strip. So we have a 54-foot radius technically shown on what should be on our plan. There's been a matter raised about construction access to Manowar Boulevard. The neighborhood may address that when they get up here. I hope they will. Because at the subdivision committee, there was a request that there be no access whatsoever to Manowar Boulevard, and we have that note on here that all construction access will be by Bravington Way. People have, we've thought about that more, the staff has, and the neighborhood may have too, that it may be best to bring some of this construction traffic in off of Manowar Boulevard rather than bringing traffic on Bravington Way. So we are agreeable to having a note on there that some of our construction traffic would use Manowar Boulevard to avoid bringing it through the neighborhood. That's up to you, but we think it would make a lot of sense to be able to use the very large, well-constructed Manowar Boulevard for some of our construction traffic. But if you think it's better not to, that's fine, too. We will totally keep that shut at all times. But we wanted to mention that to you because I think absent your action, we would propose probably being able to use Manowar Boulevard. But again, we can go either way on that one. There's a note on there about the tree area, and Mr. Query has been out on site with Rory to go over the trees. And I think that's most of what I want to tell you right now. Obviously, this is what was proposed in the 2013 comprehensive plan when we talked about using the available inventory of vacant land throughout this community so that we would not need to expand the urban service area boundary. And I think you all looked at vacant pieces throughout the community and counted upon them to develop so as to keep the pressure off the urban service boundary. This is six lots, but it's six lots that are being created on an existing parcel of land that is already zoned, been zoned 40 years. And as I said, we're complying with all the R1C zone requirements. So with that, I know there will probably be some more questions, and if you want to address the cul-de-sac, I'd ask Rory to come up here and answer any questions about that. All right. Does anyone have any questions at this time? All right. Do you want to? Rory Cayley with EA Partners. One quick correction. I haven't changed that official plan yet to show the 54-foot right-of-way. Within the subdivision regulations, cul-de-sacs are very standard. You typically have 50-foot radius for the right-of-way, 40-and-a-half feet to the back of the curb. there's a note that goes with all the cul-de-sacs in there that says that the utility strip cannot alter as it goes from the street section into the cul-de-sac ball itself. So if we follow that portion of the ordinance, our utility strip around the pavement would have to stay nine and a half feet. This is four feet wider than is typical, which is why we're suggesting that it would be a 54-foot radius. This would give us a four-foot sidewalk completely around the cul-de-sac, maintaining the nine-and-a-half-foot utility strip, and that maintains the regulation of the 40-and-a-half-foot tobacco curb. But we haven't submitted a new plan with that slightly larger radius on there yet. All right. Roy, what's those straight lines cutting off the side of that cul-de-sac? Is that a sewer line, or what is it? oh the heavy line this is the heavy lines right here um is the true property line this being a remnant even though it is barred from the brovington driveway connecting the right-of-way was never physically reverted back to an owner so this property is actually two separate parcels divided by public right-of-way that's why the heavy line goes through the middle here with approval and we build this the cult the back of sidewalk will be the new right-of-way we'll have to dedicate to that point which is why we're showing the proposed lot lines going to the back of that sidewalk where it would end eventually but for right now this is the true public or i'm sorry the true property that he's purchasing and it does include right-of-way yet to be dedicated So the right-of-way is not back behind the 9 1⁄2 feet? Well, when we're done, we build a street and dedicate it, it will be. This strip, it's 60 feet wide at the street, and then it flared out here as it got closer to Manowar. They were expecting turn lanes or something, and it went to 70 foot. It is, right now, public right-of-way that's just never going to connect. If I can clarify, too, there's existing, Mr. Osborne actually dedicated the existing right-of-way by a plant, which was approved, again, 30 years ago. So the straight lines, we have to show both the current property lines and the future on here. The straight lines are the current property lines. The curved ones are the future property lines, which will have the cul-de-sac on that. So we will be going by the curved ones on this one. All right. Clear? If you say so. I have a question. Any other questions? When this is finished, the barricade will be the same barricade that's there now? The barricade at the end of Bravington will have to be removed. That will be our access point. But the barricade that is at the stub coming off a man of war, there needs to be a break in there if we're to tie a sidewalk connection to it. I believe through the ordinance that they've handed out that as this develops, the unused portion of Brovington right-of-way is supposed to revert back to the developers. So at the end of the cul-de-sac, you see an area in green. I believe with the dedication of our cul-de-sac, that area would go from public right-of-way and be deeded back to those adjacent lots. And at some point, we'd want to have the sidewalk connection go through there. So, you know, you would have a new right-of-way line, new right-of-way fence, and that would all get cleaned up and smoothed out. Ms. Plumlee, we've put on the overhead the drawing from the Division of Engineering, and we've highlighted there on the drawing, which I think you have at your place, where the barricade is proposed to go. It's very near the end of the existing paved area. All right. Next we'll hear from any of the public that wish to speak about this. Are there a lot of you that want to speak, or can you raise your hands if you want to speak? All right. Very well. My name is Janet Cabanis, and I live at 704 Cumberland Road, 40503. I'm president of the Stonewall Community Association, which is the overall neighborhood association for the, we have 1,000 houses, and the Grasmere property is included within our neighborhood association. I've talked a couple of other times, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak again, with regard to the neighborhood's feelings, or at least the Stonewall Community Association's feelings, with regard to this development. We understand that it is our 1C, that six building lots have been proposed, and we are not objecting to that particularly. We do have some points, and I've given you a handout. It says Stonewall Community Association has the following suggestions. I left that at your places if you wouldn't mind taking a look at that as I go through it. There's a couple of things that we want to mention here that we really think would be improvements. First of all is the size of the cul-de-sac, which has been discussed. We do want to reinforce the need that the cul-de-sac be 60 feet rather than 50 or 54 feet. We think we have three strong reasons for that. First one is that we really want a safe neighborhood. I've heard the fire representatives say at both of the previous meetings I've attended that 60 feet is easier for them to get their equipment in and to operate than it is within less than 50 feet. We also want ease of access to the residents. With a larger cul-de-sac, it's easier to pull your car in and hit your driveway, one would think. And also, we want easy availability of parking for the inevitable visitors that will visit these six new homes. And we think that we know 60 feet would make that easier. We did take a look at the current cul-de-sacs in the Grasmere area. As Mr. Murphy explained, the old part of Stonewall was built in the 50s. These homes in the Grasmere area were built in the 70s and 80s. Within that 70s and 80s area, we saw seven cul-de-sacs, and they measure an average of 75.5 feet, which is quite different from 50, not quite as different from 60, but we would feel that that's something that argues towards the larger area if we can possibly, you know, in that particular new cul-de-sac. Our second point is conformance to neighborhood character. Every neighborhood wants to have this when something new is proposed. We know those houses are not going to look like the houses that were built even in the 60s and 70s, because this isn't the 60s and 70s, we feel that the R1C requirements and the things that we've heard are requirements with the conforming setbacks, front and side yard footages, building standards, and all that sort of thing will do the best it can to make reasonably nice houses along there. One thing that I haven't heard mentioned is the residential off-street parking. That is a neighborhood characteristic of Stonewall. The streets don't have cars on them. It would be nice to feel that this neighborhood characteristic could be reflected in the new subdivision. The sidewalk connectivity to Man O' War, a lot of people walk in Stonewall. It's a good thing, morning and evening and all that sort of thing. We're really happy that sidewalk connectivity is part of their plan, and that relates to points number 15 and number 7. And then, of course, we have the cul-de-sac diameter, which we just discussed as another. If those larger cul-de-sacs can be called neighborhood character, then if we could push for the larger cul-de-sac, that would be a benefit to maintaining what we would define as neighborhood character. in addition I want to talk about the apron and the man-of-war exit lane and I brought oh good he's thinking this is the man-of-war exit lane you can see that at this point we're just starting the exit lane where that pavement goes on and this lane comes out it is 312 feet along that lane from where it starts if you could show the next one that will be at the pole in the middle here. There's the middle pole, and you can see we're still a ways from the turn-in there. And if we could go to the next slide, which is actually on the other side of the turn-in, and that is the actual apron. For some reason, the car stopped in the turn-in when we took that picture. That's our car there, because we had to get out somewhere. But you can see that our car, It's a big, already laid piece of asphalt there, and it shows from Manowar. And then we've got one more that shows you the other look out from Bravington, out across the fields where the six houses are proposed, to Manowar. Okay? Now, if we could go back to the... There you go. I'm going to sort of incorporate that. I would like to suggest that it would be a great benefit to remove both the apron and the lane off of Man-o-War. Having that Man-o-War lane there implies there's an exit. This red car might have thought there was an exit only yesterday. We think that is a safety concern. If you leave the stubbed street there as it appears now, I think it invites accidents and crashes into the subdivision because the turn lane is so long and so prominent. It's 300 feet long. It's at least as long as the next turn lane, which would go to Gladman Way, up the road about a quarter of a mile. Right now, when you're going there after dark, the Bravington proposed lane, which will never be, we hope, It's dark there. There's no house back there. But when we get houses on there, there will be lights. It is likely to look like, well, there's something I can turn into there. And, you know, that's a crash. That's somebody winding up in somebody's front yard. And the yards presumably will be along that line of trees there. It's not trees. It's a fence that has vines on it at that point. barely 15 feet of clearance between Manowar and the edge of the yard. Also, aesthetically, you know, we really want the new area to look like a regular set of six houses that were built there instead of houses that got built where a road was supposed to be. We really kind of think it looks like there's a road there. You put six houses. It's a question in everybody's mind. We would also like to suggest careful landscaping along Manowar, particularly along the sides of the two houses, number three and four on the plat there, because they are close to Manowar, within 15 feet of traffic, it looks to us like. And we also would like to request landscaping in the apron when it's removed, because otherwise it would just be more aesthetically pleasing. We feel that there would be noise reduction if you had good landscaping, improved appearance, better buffering for safety concerns between those areas and man-of-war. Because this is a year-round thing, we'd like to suggest that evergreens be considered for that landscaping because otherwise a deciduous tree is going to leave a backyard exposed to man-of-war traffic. And I think that relates to your agenda points number three and number nine. It refers to landscaping, or we want landscaping instead of what you characterize as arterial screening. I think there is a difference there. I may be wrong about that. I would next like to talk about the opening and closing of the Manowar exit during the construction phases, which is what Mr. Murphy talked about. Now, we feel that there are good reasons for taking that barrier down at the first of the construction. We think there are two construction phases, as it has been explained to us. The first is this phase, the forming of the subdivision. If you approve it, as I understand it, you will put in the infrastructure, which would be sewers, utilities, construction of the actual cul-de-sac. we don't see any reason why it wouldn't be much easier for that barrier to be removed during that phase of the subdivision. But after the first phase of cul-de-sac construction, we really need to assure the neighbors that the 1985 resolution to close Bravington permanently to Manowar will be respected. and we think the best way to do that will be that the Manowar apron and the exit lane be closed or somehow restricted and the land landscaped, ideally. Individual home construction, because we've been told that these six lots will be sold to individual builders in their plan, it could take years for six builders to want to build there. if you have both ends open once you have a cul-de-sac, it looks like an invitation to drive through there if you need a shortcut or if somebody accidentally to drive up from Man of War and go over the curb, I guess, to get to the cul-de-sac and on into the subdivision of Stonewall. We would like you to consider, that's better, putting back the barrier as someone, I believe Ms. Plumlee asked for that, after it's all over just to make sure that people understand this is closed and to work that all in tastefully with the landscaping that we've also thought would be a good idea at that point. I appreciate you listening to our concerns and thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak to this? Come forward and state your name and address, please. Good afternoon, Commission members. My name is David Goodpastor. I am a resident of Stonewall neighborhood as well. I won't take a lot of your time. I just would like to make one point, and that is I will have to respectfully disagree with Janet in that not all of the neighborhood is very thrilled with the idea of six lots. And while I do understand that these developers are well within their rights with the R1C zone requirements, I'd like to point out the fact that for whatever reason, back in 1985 on the proposed permanent solution on those resolutions, in the notes, the LFUCG did specifically say on point number three, provides that the cul-de-sac shall be constructed either prior to or at the time of the development of the remaining two lots and at the end of Bravington Way with the developer to be subject to customary construction and dedication requirements. So basically what's happening here is, yes, the requirements are being fulfilled, but they're squeezing every bit out of it that they can. So I ask that the commission please take this under consideration. And these are the kinds of decisions that we have aboard and that we have commissions. And so if we're just going to go based on numbers on a piece of paper, then we really wouldn't need to have these kinds of meetings. So I'd ask that you consider that. And not only are we talking about splitting these lots into four, but we're talking about making six. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Tom DelBillo. I live at 928 Bravington Way, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you all this afternoon. I appreciate Janet's input and David's both, and I'm not going to take a lot of your time, but I also wanted to echo David's points that we feel that on our street, Unfortunately, my neighbors aren't available. One's out of town, and the other is dealing with a sick relative. So everybody that I have talked with is very concerned about six houses going into this cul-de-sac. We feel like it doesn't build into the customary structure of the neighborhood, and it changes the character of the neighborhood. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Yes, sir. So my name is Chris Norris. I live on Grasmere Drive. You can almost see my house in that picture. So I think the issue here is, with the six lots, is it's technically a new development, but it's not practically a new development. This is in our neighborhood. Man of War closes us in. It's Stonewall. You can't get in or out of it unless you go through Stonewall. Okay? If I ripped out the three houses across the street from me and put six houses right there in their spot, that's pretty much akin to what this is. Okay, this is just something that is really, I think, degrading the character and the integrity of our neighborhood. Thanks. Very well. Anyone else? Okay. does the staff have any rebuttal mr. Murphy you want to go first okay mr. Murphy I don't get to do this very much I get mixed up every now and then I'll be happy to go last Just a couple things. I think we're in agreement with most of the things that Ms. Cabanus raised. We feel confident we can coordinate the construction access on Manowar Boulevard so that it is not possible to drive people driving through on that. That would be the goal of everyone, not to have through traffic. I mean, I guess if you were planning it today, you'd want through traffic, but we understand what happened 30 years ago on that. So we think we can coordinate that, and as Rory mentioned, once that is dedicated and constructed, there would be no further access to Manowar Boulevard even for construction traffic. On the cul-de-sac issue, I think we've discussed that. We're showing what Rory would identify as a 54-foot radius on that. And I did want to mention that there's a question raised about off-street parking. Every house here will have a minimum two-car garage, and there's plenty of room on these lots for parking. We do not anticipate on-street parking. The thing I observe is that the bigger you make the cul-de-sac, the more it encourages people to do this snout-in parking along the edge of the cul-de-sac, which defeats the purpose of having the turnaround for the fire trucks and everything. So we feel by having it, and this is a good-sized cul-de-sac here that we're proposing, along with minimum two-car garages off-site and driveways and everything, we don't think that's going to be an issue here. On the issue of six lots, we are entitled to six lots under the R1C zone category. The resolution itself, which was adopted in 85, just referred to development of the remaining lots. There was commentary at the end after, which was not part of the ordinance, that discussed two lots at the end of Cravington Way, and that's because at that time there was two lots. Because a 10-acre lot is considered one lot until it's subdivided. A 200-acre farm is considered one lot until it's subdivided. At that time, there were two lots down here because of the dedication of the right-of-way. On the turn lane on Man-of-War Boulevard, it's interesting. I had an observation from another design professional before the meeting started who wasn't involved with this at all who said to me, well, don't let them take this turn lane out. It's the only place along Man-of-War that if you have car trouble, you can pull off because of the curbs along Manowar Boulevard. It has been there for 32 years. I think most everybody in this neighborhood knows where it is. I've heard that the police sometimes sit there observing speeds of traffic going by, but everybody knows where it is. and plus it's I was I worked at the city when Manowar was being designed and built and I know it was designed as an integrated unit the storm water is designed very carefully through there taking into account all the turn lanes and everything we have on this turn lane we have storm water inlets we have street lights we have underground utilities and it would be a massive undertaking and an extremely complicated undertaking to take that turn lane out, regardless of the fact that in doing public improvements, the scope of the public improvements asked for by the developer have to be proportional to the impact that that developer is placing on the public system. And when you compare the impact that six lots will have, which have no direct access to Manowar Boulevard, it would be violating the case law, precedent law of this state to require this developer to take out the turn lane. And if the city wants to do that, that's fine. They can design that in conjunction with whoever designed it. I know Wesley Witt designed this originally under a contract with the state or the city, but the city can do that and work in the stormwater issues that's going to be altered by doing this, the utilities that are going to be altered, the street lights that are going to be altered, and all that sort of thing. So no, unfortunately, we cannot volunteer to take out the Manowar turn lane here. But on the other things, we do plan on additional landscaping along Manowar on those two lots that face it. That's going to be as much a benefit to us and the future homeowners as it is to anybody else. We want to have that landscaping along there. So with that, we appreciate the comments of the Stonewall Neighborhood Association, and we feel this is an appropriate addition to the neighborhood. And again, I want to emphasize just for the record, these are single-family detached homes. We appreciate there not being discussed today about the things that have been said about what's going out there because we're talking about six single-family detached homes with no zone change whatsoever. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Now, Mr. Martin. Do you want to have some rebuttal? Yeah. I do have a question for Mr. Murphy. You said you wouldn't take out the turn lane. does that include you would leave the apron there, the asphalt into the subdivision that just ends? I didn't understand. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, in the interim, may I ask counsel a question? Is this apron removal internally even our issue? Is that not the council or the highway department prerogative? I think it probably is if the developer isn't willing to voluntarily do something because it is right away dedicated to the city. That's what I thought. Thank you. All right. Very quickly, because I think these things have been touched on, and that was one item, Mr. Drake, that I was going to touch on very quickly. Any changes to man or war is the government's responsibility at this time, although we do appreciate the neighborhood's concerns, certainly, about safety issues, but that is a government responsibility. And then very quickly, to be very clear, and Mr. Murphy touched on this, this is attached to the ordinance as some sort of worksheet, that sort of thing. The actual ordinance does state that the remaining lots, it doesn't specify a number, as Mr. Murphy has already explained. And then the statement was made by Mr. Cayley about the property reverting. The ordinance actually states, interesting enough, the mayor is authorized to sell the property. Until that happens, it is right-of-way, and it's public right-of-way. And any maintenance of it, any landscape, anything like that, that's city right of way. It would have to be approved and maintained by the city. So hopefully it will revert shortly after this property develops in accordance with the ordinance. All right. Very well. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I also have one item for the commission. I'm going to put on the overhead and exhibit. but we're just putting up the two types of cul-de-sacs that are contained in your subdivision regulation, just the bottom two. The top one is a 50-foot cul-de-sac. Thank you. And the bottom one is a 60-foot cul-de-sac with a median. The rectangles were put on the copy in my book from a previous case just indicate how fire trucks can maneuver that and set up their outriggers, but that is the geographic difference, geometric, I should say, difference between the two cul-de-sacs. Since this is a subdivision with the staff, it does believe you have the ability to decide whether this should be a 50- or 60-foot cul-de-sac. Thank you. Very well. Okay. I just want to point out that that was discussed, I think, in an earlier case maybe we were involved in. And as I recall, the fire department, and you all are here to correct, said that they would prefer not to have the island because that encourages people to park around the island, which makes it more difficult to get in there. Okay. I'm going to close this part of the hearing. and turn it over to the commission. Go ahead. I just got a question on Tom or Tracy. Your statement about the government taking care of the apron and what have you, does that also extend to the removal of the barrier temporarily? Because I question if we can even do that. It says it's to be permanently closed. It is permanently closed, and the barrier, if it's taken down, will have to go back. But it is a governmental barrier. That's who placed it originally, I believe, when it was closed, was the government. I understand the neighbors' concerns with that. I'm just wondering if we can really do that. Do removing— If we can mandate that it be removed for construction. I think you can allow them construction access through there. that would not be opening the road. I think it will have to be done fairly carefully. In other words, it would just be access for the construction. So it would have to be closed back off at the end of the day or somehow temporarily so there wouldn't be access through there during the construction period. And then the permanent barrier would have to be put back in place so that it wouldn't really be open to the public at all. It would just be open for construction and barricaded the rest of the time. Okay. I suspect that would be part of the permitting process and an encroachment allowance for them to permit for them to work and use that right away for that purpose. And then my second question is in regards to the size of the cul-de-sac. I think they're saying it's a 54 foot. Originally designed as a 50. We've talked about a 60 and we're supposed to resolve that. Do you all have any other comments about this design being 54 feet and whether that be fire or planning staff? I can tell you that discussions, we did have discussions and fire does like the 60 foot cul-de-sac. Yes, that was recommended in that discussion. All right. Mr. Wilson was Go ahead, Mr. Wilson. I don't know what they're doing. Okay. I was almost inclined. I wanted to hear what they were saying to myself. You think that the fire, I was looking for verification for what Mr. Murphy said. Which is it that the fire department prefers, the 54 or the 60? They prefer the 60. They're here and they can speak to it, but that's my understanding that they prefer the 60. Okay. Would you like to? Well, he's coming down here. Okay. Mr. Chairman, Greg Ling will fire. Yeah, it was presented to us that the cul-de-sac would be constructed at 60 feet at technical and subdivision, and we were in agreement with that. With that said, we don't want an island in the middle of the cul-de-sac, so that's our stipulation there. Good. Thank you. Can I have one more question? Yes, sir. Not for the fire department. This is, I just need clarification on the sidewalk. Is the sidewalk going to be a permanent from Barretton to Manowar? Yes, sir. There will be a permanent sidewalk connection. Is that on both sides? That's a good question. We hadn't discussed that. I think it was a one-side connection was what was implied, but that's an excellent question. One. One. One. Just one. Kind of follow the existing path that folks have created on their own. And could you give me just very quickly, I know looking at the plan here, the lot size is very, what's the smallest lot size that we're talking about? Well, I'd have to take a quick look. I'm looking over at the far right. Honestly, this one is a little odd. Frankly, I know they exceed the minimum, but it would be hard to say this quickly to what that is unless the applicant knows off as well. Is it approximately a half acre or more than an acre? Well, no. No, that's not. That's much smaller. I can't. Well, I can't. That's my problem. Trying to do the math on the shape. 60 by 230, I guess, is about this. So you should be able to get a pretty good-sized house in on that line. Okay. Any other questions? Karen. I guess my question, first of all, I have a comment, and then my question. And I guess I have a little bit of confusion in my mind when something says it's permanently closed that we can temporarily open it. Well, it's more, I would say, more like an encroachment. I mean, I think we do this in other places where we have construction accesses through something that's not really a permanent access. Okay. But if it's used for that, it's not going to be permanently opened. And it would have to be, once that construction phase is over, it would have to be closed. Okay. All right. And then my other thought on it is, if we could get rid of that apron in that area there, and I don't know if we can or not because of utility easements and all that, but if we could get rid of that, we wouldn't have to have that ugly barrier there. the sidewalk could go through and it maybe could be a little more aesthetically pleasing. But I don't know if that's a possibility. I mean, I know we can't really mandate that. That would be something that the city would have to do, I think. My thought on that. All right. Very well. Ms. Plumlee? Yes, I think maybe Roy can answer this one. I noticed the neighbors were concerned about the landscaping along those two lots adjacent to Manowar. Could you describe for them some plants or evergreens or whatever might be there so they would have sort of an ease with that situation? Well, yeah. I don't believe it's arterial screening that is required there because the Manowar is city-maintained. Ordinance states that it has to be a state-maintained arterial that gets arterial screening. But as far as any sort of screening that the residents or developer or the residents would put in, most common around here is you do white pines on a 15-foot stagger, double row, and as they grow and fill in, that tends to block out most of the visualness of the highway. where I live, there's a guy, he's got some cedars. There's tall junipers. There's a whole bunch of evergreens, cypresses that can do the trick. Thank you. Okay. All right, any other? If I may, and I apologize. I want to be very clear on something and I'm not sure if I heard it correctly, but your subdivision regulations require arterial screening on arterials not maintained by the state. And Manowar is maintained by the local government. That's why we are requiring arterial screening on those lots. And I would think that you would have to do something to sell those houses right there. all right uh any other statements or questions by the commission everybody i do have one question you don't have to make them up i mean i'm not gonna question i'm not gonna make it up i just want what what is it going to be is it going to be 60 or 54 in terms of the turnaround i mean i'm well that's what we're trying to decide right here as the commission. So you can make a motion just accepting it as it's written there and maybe add construction traffic would be allowed from Man War until such time it's not the infrastructure's done. Might be one way to do it, or you could say 60 feet in your motion, or you could say 54, or you could leave it like that and let the staff and the applicant resolve it. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of Plan 2015-68P, the Graysmer subdivision unit 5 with the 15 statements from the staff. Okay. Did you want to address the construction traffic or not? It's a number 13. It's a resolve, and that could be done within the... I'm talking about letting them come off a man of war just during the... Oh, yes. If that is possible, to allow construction traffic off of Manowar. That would be your number 16. That would make it a number 16, correct. Second. All right, we have a motion for approval and a second. Any discussion? All right. Do you have 60 vote there? No, she's leaving. her motion was to leave 13 as is, which staff and the applicant will resolve it. All right. Okay. Everybody vote when we can. That motion carries, so plan is approved. Okay. Well, in that case, the staff will make a decision about that. Okay. Okay. And that's what you're doing, because I was two years better. Okay. I can deal with that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. subdivision. We have placed upon the overhead for you the development plan for this property. You may recall that the Anderson II subdivision is located out on Walnut-Charlesburg Hill Road, very close to the hard 90-degree turn that it takes. Back to this area across, this is the local street they are building, Bridgewater Way. Down here's the in this area's the park, Jacobson Park. Over here is Mr. Tucker's property. Back in that way is Andover, and that's subdivision. And again, Childsburg, Stillwater, Stillwater, Stillmeadows, more in this way. This is a final record plat that is lotting off the townhouses that were approved on the final development plan, preliminary subdivision plan for this property as you may recall in this area you have a large 200 foot setback off of childsburg road and again they have constructed the townhouses and they are back creating the lots for those townhouses there's 23 lots and you have an access easement that serves as the primary access to those townhouses. The plan that you see before you is a revision. The previous plan had a lot of cleanup items, and they did submit that to staff. And we have a revised handout here for you in pink where they have cleaned up the conditions. We have that you need to make a finding on the access easement. Well, you actually did that on the development plan, preliminary subdivision plan already on the access easement. But we did add that as a condition to this plan. There is an issue that came up with staff and then in your subdivision committee, and that is we've handed out a couple of handouts to you. There are these pieces of paper here. And what that issue is, is the provision of fencing next to active agricultural uses. That's an issue that has some history out here. And so staff was acutely aware of that history. And when this property came through and was recommended for approval, one of the items that was discussed with the Planning Commission and recommended by your staff was that a note go on the development plan. We have presented that to you. It's note number 13. I know the print's very small. But note number 13 states that the applicant will have to document compliance with that part of the subdivision regulations before a final record plaque can be certified. So they're going to have to install the agricultural fence next to whatever property. There's property here, and I believe some property down in here, that is being actively used for an ag use. The subdivision regs, we also handed out a copy to you, describes the type of fence that they have to install. So that's going to have to be done before they can take this to record. In conjunction with that, this body made a finding and authorized the provision in this border through here of a landscape fence, a solid wood landscaping fence, in lieu of the agricultural fence. And that was to do a better job of screening these townhouses against the adjoining agricultural property. So that was an issue that was raised at your subdivision committee, and staff wanted to address that and hand out those materials so that you'll know that it has been addressed on your final development plan that's been approved. And again, as I stated, that prior to certifying this plan, the applicant will have to document that they have, in fact, met that requirement. With that, staff is recommending approval of this final record plat. I might add they're platting 23 townhouse lots on this plat. All right. Any questions? All right. Thank you. Applicant? Thank you. Dick Murphy again representing Dennis Anderson. and Steve Garland is here with us from Integrated Engineering, the designer, and don't have much to add to that except that this is the townhouses out there have already been constructed because they were constructed under the development plan, but in order to sell these individually, we do have to plat it, so we are bringing the plat through for that. The, along the boundary with Mr. Tucker, we were required to do the privacy fence in lieu of the agricultural fence. That fence has been constructed. There was some discussion at Subdivision Committee about where it was. We checked on that, and when that was put up, the instructions to the fence company were to keep it on Mr. Anderson's property completely. and also to avoid doing injury to trees. So it had to move around a little bit to avoid some trees on there, but generally that fence is between one foot and three feet off of the property line. But it is installed and it is there. Now there's an issue about the rest of the fence, not where these townhomes are, but for the vacant land, that there also has to be an agricultural division fence built there. And as Mr. Martin told you, that is required to be done before certification of the plant, and that will be done before certification of this plant. The contractors have been out there to take the lay of the land and know what they have to do, so that's going to be installed very soon along the rest of the agricultural boundary. All right. Very well. Any questions of Mr. Murphy? Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues do not have any other thing, I'm ready to make a motion. We're going to see if anyone else wants to speak. Oh, I'm sorry. I mean, I appreciate it. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak? Yes. My name is John Tucker. I am the trustee for the properties, the Tucker Properties, that's on both sides of the pew fenced. It looks like my issue has been addressed. They're going to fence it. So amen. Thank you all. It's been a long, hard road. Thank you for your help. Hopefully I don't have to come see you as much. So have a good day. I've just noted we haven't seen you in a while. You're welcome. Okay. I'm going to turn it over to the commission for any comments or motion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, unless my colleagues have anything else to say, I move approval for Plan 2015-74F Anderson's 2 subdivision with the 11 conditions outlined by staff. Second. Okay, we have a motion for approval and a second. You did mean the revised? Yes. Okay. Everybody vote. If I could just note for the record, the condition 10 was providing the Planning Commission makes a finding on the access easement, and Mr. Martin just informed me that you all had already made that in 2013, so that has been complied with. Well, let's just comply again. Mr. Wilson, would you like to make that finding? That's fine. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't make that accommodation. In other words, it's just 10 conditions as opposed to 11. Well, and you're making, we're making the finding of, for the access. All right, very well. You haven't seen the vote yet, have you? Uh-uh. You didn't have a vote yet? No, all you had to do was state it, because it was in the... Okay. We never voted. Not yet. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, item K on page 5 of your agenda is plan 2015-79-F. It's no lie, CDC Corp, and Clifford property. is the title. However, I believe the plat that you see before you is showing four lots to be created on York Street. Now, this is an area over off North Limestone. You all may be aware of No Lie and the activities on North Limestone and Loudon. They rezoned part of this area to a PUD zone so they can facilitate the redevelopment of artists and residents and that sort of thing. So they own these properties, and they are lotting them. This is a large, deeded piece of land that's never actually been platted. A lot of the area around it was platted in the late 1800s and the 1890s, as a matter of fact, an older area. This plan has undergone some revisions. We actually got this one this morning at about 10 o'clock. They had originally brought in an eight lots, and there's been some changes in what's happening out there and what they can work with at this time. So they wanted to be sure you saw an accurate depiction of what they hope to have approved out here and what they wish to work on, and that would be these four lots that you see before you today. There were kind of your general, you can see from your agenda, there are your normal sign-offs for a record plat. And this PLAT could have been recommended for approval by your subdivision committee, but unfortunately, due to some miscommunications, no one showed up to represent the applicant in this PLAT. They are here today. There were two issues that remained, and one of those is whether or not public sewer was available and what that would entail. entail. The lines are out here in the street, which is typical sanitary sewer. Staff is always concerned when new lots get created that they're able to tie in by a lateral as opposed to having to build new public sewer, extend public sewer, set a manhole, that sort of thing, because that's a whole nother level of infrastructure design, bonding. There's a lot of things implied with that. So that was a concern that has been addressed. We are aware that there is sewer out there and they should be able to to access that with laterals so that that condition has been taken care of there's another condition on this plan and as you all are aware utilities have review rights under our process and they request easements and those easements get established on the plats staff was concerned about this note right here utility companies shall have access to all open space areas. That's not an uncommon note for apartment complexes and some things like that. Staff was very concerned. Again, we're very supportive, as you're all aware, of No Lie and their activities, and they're trying to recreate, or not recreate, but redevelop the area and do some interesting and innovative things. They have the PUD zone out there. We were concerned that they would inadvertently create areas of conflict with that open space note with utilities and get involved in encroachments and unnecessary negotiations with utility providers. So we just wanted to raise that issue on their behalf because utilities are going to have the opportunity to get what easements they need, specifically what they need on these lots, which is typically what we do on a final record plan for single-family homes and that sort of thing. So that was the purpose of that concern. With that, although your subdivision committee did recommend postponement, staff is recommending approval of this plat today. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. I don't see any mention of capacity assurance. Hmm. That's a good question. The sewers are there. It's an older area. I'm not sure how that dropped off there. That's pretty much a normal condition anymore, so thank you. I think we can add that. Well, you mentioned sewer. That brought it to mind, so. Right. Thank you. We'll work on some wording to put on the overhead. We will. We will. Yeah. All right. Any other questions? Thank you. She looked like she got you with that one, Tom. I mean, you know. No, thank you. I have to, unfortunately, accept responsibility for that condition. All right. All right, is the applicant here? Would you like to speak or do you want to stand? I'd just like to thank Tom and all the planning staff for accommodating us. I know it seems a little bit scattered the way that we've approached this, but we are trying to move on a tight timeline based on funding we are getting from the city, so trying to make every effort to make that happen as soon as possible. All right. So thank you all. Very well. We're waiting on some new language, I think. Right. Just in response to Tom's comments, I would like to basically agree with Tom that that blanket easement note should be stricken from the final plat. That was an oversight on our part and not at all the intent. So, thank you. We'll have this on the overhead for you in just a moment. That's okay. We're not going anywhere. We have a revised condition number 11 and a new condition number 12 and I'll just read those for you. Number 11 would be change to delete blanket utility easement note. Very simple change. Then number 12 is a new condition that mimics the typical approval of capacity assurance program. That's the same language that you see on almost every other plan. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. I'm going to turn it over to the commission. Great. Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend approval of Plan No. 2015-79F, NOLA, CDC Corp., and Clifford Property with the first 10 conditions, adding changing number 11 to read delete the blanket easement and changing number 12 to read documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval of the Capacity Assurance Program requirements prior to plan certification. All right, very well. We have a second. Second by Mr. Richardson. Everybody vote. That motion carries. Mr. Chairman, the next item appears on page 6 of your agenda, item 3A, High Point Subdivision. We're not aware that any representative is here for this item today. So in light of your subdivision committee's recommendation, we would ask you to consider a postponement of this to your September 10th meeting at this time. All right. Very well. Can we get a motion to postpone? Sure. I'll make a motion to postpone DP 2015-30. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Anybody vote? That plan is postponed. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page 8. It is DP 2015-58, Hamburg East, also known as Waterstone at Hamburg. And we have handed out to you revised conditions on this plan. You can see on the lovely purple sheet. I like that. Purple in my tie, you see. This is a college pop-up I walked off without my first time. Got ahead of myself. We are out at Manowar Boulevard and Polo Club Boulevard. This is approximately a nine acre tract right there in the corner right across the road is Costco's Cabello's is over here or Cabello's but again Costco is at this location here's Man of War here's Polo Club Boulevard what you see before you is an apartment complex development. They are proposing two buildings here and here with 264 units. There are 396 parking spaces, as you can see, distributed around the property, primarily in the perimeter and some in the interior in this location. This is a clubhouse with a pool. This is Fitzgerald Court. This is a local street. They intend to construct this in conjunction with the development. They are proposing access here onto Fitzgerald, and you can see as well that they're requesting permission for a right in, right out in this location off of Polo Club Boulevard. It's our understanding that these are going to be approximately 54 feet in height. There is a height restriction in the AR-3 of 60, so they're just under that. The interesting thing about this development, as you can see from your agenda and the requirements, the conditions, is that there's a ZODA associated with this. And that ZODA addresses your AAR3 expansion area zoning requirement that there not be any parking in the front yard. And that's a prohibition. So for this development to ultimately, this plan to be certified, of course that ZODA will have to be approved not only by the Planning Commission but go forward to the Urban County Council and be approved. And what that ZODA will do is allow 25 percent of their required parking to be in the front yard. And, of course, that's what they're depicting here for you today. But, again, that's an important consideration for this plan. The other thing that is very interesting about this is that this is the first, the very first density transfer development that we've had in the expansion area in the 19 plus years that we've had an expansion area. And they are transferring 64 units from a site down in this location. There is a greenway and a stormwater facility. So, you know, the expansion area is tied together by its stormwater greenways, the creeks, in essence, which are also stormwater facilities. And that's one of the things the EMP calls for. You can't develop in those greenways, obviously, but they are part of your density calculations. So they are transferring from that site, and you've approved a plat on that site, by the way. They are transferring density to this site. Now, they're retaining 27, I believe, units are still reserved that can be transferred later should they be required somewhere else within this expansion area. The plan that you see is a revision. There's been a lot of work done. There's been several revisions. The plan is considerably cleaned up from what it was originally. You have your standard sign-offs. You have a few clean-up things, complete the property boundary to match the plat. You approved the plat, by the way, on your consent agenda today. That is accompanying this development plan. Standard things about denoting exactions. They will have to pay exactions on this property. Addition of a pedestrian access crosswalk across Polo Club Boulevard. And then document compliance with Article 23A2Q of the zoning ordinance regarding the front yard. and then there's a waiver request as well. All this is going to tie into your compliance findings on the EAMP. As you are aware, this plan has to comply with the EAMP and you all have to make a finding to that effect. And we have handed out the report to you. It was also distributed at your subdivision committee. the important aspects of the eamp in this area are of course uh future land use element and as already touched on uh ear3 is a higher is the highest density residential zone in the amp and this plan certainly complies with that they have as i stated before with the density transfer they have even increased their density in this particular location which staff fully supports We are very pleased to see a multifamily development out in the ER3 and an increase in density and good utilization of the property. And that is very much consistent with the future land use element of your AMP. The design features are that there is an open space and swimming pool in the area. There's plenty of room for landscaping and that sort of thing, which will help create a neighborhood and some uniqueness, which is something the UAMP stresses. They stress design features and community design elements that help create a unique area. And staff believes they've done a pretty good job of that. Like I say, there's a lot of open space, green space. There are pedestrian and bike racks and pedestrian facilities to the interior that also connect to the exterior so that there will be good pedestrian connections in the area. The infrastructure element is, of course, as you know, often very, very important to the AMP. and in this particular instance, you may recall from the other developments, the regional pump station has been completed and is online and in use in serving this area. And that's key, of course, the sanitary sewer. That was a very large, important component of the AMP. And that has been done. It's located across Winchester Road, further down the watershed. did. Polo Club Boulevard, also an identified infrastructure element in the expansion area. It has been constructed, as I'm sure you're aware, from Manowar all the way to Winchester and, of course, across Manowar. It has been constructed in other parts of the AMP. It is a central element to the infrastructure requirement, and it has been done. The storm water I've already touched on. The storm water facilities in this area have, for the most part been constructed. There are a few others further on other parts of the property that will have to be done as that property to the west develops. But in this particular property, in this location, the stormwater facilities required by the EAMP have been constructed and are in place. Now, there's a couple of elements under the community design element of the EMP that I need to direct your attention to. And I touched briefly on those when I mentioned the landscaping requirement with 23-A2. And that is a requirement that 50% of any front yard must be landscaped. And that's not required front yard, that's front yard, and that's designated in the ordinance. And so one of the design elements is the developer can pick their front yard. The minimum is five feet under the ordinance. So when they select whatever setback they want, whatever front yard, 50% of that needs to be landscaped. This plan attempts to show more of that in terms of measuring the area and that sort of thing. And they've given us some numbers. It does appear that they're meeting that, but we want to be very sure that they are meeting that. There's no question about them because that is a requirement that they do that, a community design element requirement. The other issue of concern in community design, and we've had this discussion on another collector street on the north end of town off Newtown. We had this discussion. But Polo Club Boulevard is a collector street under the A&P, and the A&P recommends that access be set according to standards, community standards. In this particular case, a final development plan for Polo Club was approved by the Planning Commission, and as part of that, access points were set. And the first one, 800 feet down to here. That's what was set. After that, it was every 500 feet. And you may recall when Cabela's came in, they had to adjust the plan to meet that. So that is a big community design element. The AMP makes that recommendation. So that, again, we have that with Fitzgerald Court. The right in, right out obviously does not meet that requirement. and we can't tell you, staff's not going to tell you they're meeting the community design element of the AMP by proposing this because, again, the AMP was followed when these access points were set. Now, that being said, you have also before you, and we've handed out to you, a waiver request. And that's this. The applicant has requested a waiver. You've seen several of these lately associated with larger developments on Manowar and some similar places, both commercial, assisted living, where write-in, write-outs have been requested, and waivers have been required because of the spacing. Now, your subdivision regulations have a formula. These access points, by the way, were set on a development plan. That's how they were set in conformance with the AMP-recommended procedures. come up with standards set the access points your subdivision regs have a formula and when you follow that formula and work it out the access that's recommended for this this land use is about 812 feet so they have 800 feet right there they're so very close to that standard so they have in response to that they are requesting a waiver for this right in right out now staff's review disk we worked very closely with the applicant we've worked very closely with traffic engineering and there is a as you know there's a median all the way down through here there's a light here there's a light here and because of those or there will be pardon me there's not yet i part there will be a light here and because of that and because the fact that it's well controlled and there's a median staff and traffic engineering are a lot more comfortable with right in and right outs. We feel that most people that live here, they want to go left, they're going to come down this way. And as things develop, and again, there will be a light to help with those movements. Initially, there was some concern with folks coming out, forcing their way over, and trying to do a U-turn and a left. It is staff's understanding that traffic engineering worked with some folks associated with the applicants, some other engineers and people, and they kicked it around quite a bit and determined that it's probably a good idea to not try to restrict that. If traffic allows, there's no reason not to allow people to go ahead and make that movement. Obviously, in real heavy peak times, they're not going to try. They're going to come out here and they're going to use that. So with that discussion and the consideration that was given, and I might add they're building a right turn lane here a deacceleration lane so when people come off of man of war or cross polo club however they happen to be they can get over here and turn in so that will uh that'll make this situation safer in that regard so staff has reviewed this and in terms of your eamp we have recommended that you do find that it is substantially in compliance. We have raised some issues about the community design, which I've touched on with you, and they've made an effort to address that. We are recommending a couple of things, and I should touch on those. Staff believes, again, I'll go back, the A&P wants to create neighborhoods, unique areas, and staff is recommending that a landscape exhibit be submitted along with architectural renderings and that they develop in substantial accordance with those exhibits that we would like to have filed with planning and building inspection so that we know that they are complying with those design elements. And as you all are aware, EAMP stresses that. It stresses it in the CC. It stresses it in the single family where we have development standards. We have big box across the road where we stress design elements. We think for them to show full compliance with the MP, they need to have design elements on their property, on their development. So I did want to touch on that. In addition to that, we have reviewed the waiver along with traffic, and we are recommending approval. This is about 406 feet here and a little bit further here. It's splitting the difference between this 800 feet. And again, subsequent access is 500 feet on down Manowar. Right in, right out with the median tends to work well in the staff's opinion along with traffic engineering. So we are recommending approval of that waiver to you today. I know I've been over a lot of information on this plan. It's typical of an AAMP. I believe they have submitted their affidavit that they did put a sign up on the property as required under your ordinance. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Where's the construction entrance? They're going to come in here off future Fitzgerald Court. Okay, thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Martin? All right. Thank you. Applicant. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here with Stalk Union on behalf of the applicant, MB Residential. Paul Metzger is here with Miller-Valentine. That is the MB in MB Residential. And Brad Boaz with CMW. between us all, I hope that we'd be able to answer any questions that you all may have. Since it's already been a long meeting and we do kind of have approvals across the board, I will kind of skip a full presentation of the development plan, but I do want to kind of touch on two key issues here. The first is why are we here if we're depending on a text amendment that's not going to be heard for another two weeks? That's a totally reasonable thing to think about. While two weeks might not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of planning and zoning here in Lexington, it is very much a big deal when there's a closing date that's already been set. We've already set our closing date. If we have approval of this development plan here today, it will give Miller-Valentine the ability to kind of let the leash out a little bit more for the architects, the engineers, and even their attorneys to do the due diligence and get basically the type of certifications that we need in order to move forward with our closing. Also, since the development plan is specifically conditioned on the text amendment being approved, we can't get it certified if the text amendment does not pass. And so there is no real danger in basically approving this today, even if you don't like the text amendment itself, because that still has to come before you all. With that being said, I'm not going to go into the full justification for the text amendment itself or the front yard parking. I do want to point out that we are actually only providing 15 percent of our parking in the front yard, and the text amendment is to allow up to 25 percent. I'm happy to answer any questions you all might have about the parking, about the landscaping that is in that front yard area or the justification for the text amendment itself. But again, since we're going to be back here in two weeks, I was going to save you all a little bit more time. But the main issue with which we are here is for this write-in, write-out. That is kind of the key issue that is kind of remaining that needs to be discussed here. When you are dealing with a project of substance, and we are not trying to hide at all, this is a project of substance. It is 264 units, and it's 436 beds. When you are dealing with something like that, you have to very carefully, specifically design to make sure it fits in the area you've selected, and it doesn't impact the area around that. The EAR-3, it has a very specific intent that has been laid out, and it's kind of threefold. We want high-density residential in EAR-3. It is higher than any of the other residential areas in the expansion area. It also wants you to take advantage of density transfer rights in order to increase the density even higher than what is normally permitted. And finally, it wants well-designed projects. This is what this plan does. We are at the corner of the two largest boulevards in the expansion area. This is exactly where you want density. We are taking 63 density rights off an area that doesn't need to be developed in order to transfer it to the location where you want this development. That takes care of the first two elements of the EAR3 intent and the comprehensive plan. The final one is the well-designed project. This is where the waiver comes in. How many times have you heard fire and traffic engineering talk about basically multifamily developments, senior living facilities needing at least two access points? It is not smart planning to have 264 units only having one access point on a local street. That's not smart. Anything that happens at either the intersection of Fitzgerald or the one access point off of Fitzgerald, you are landlocking everyone already in there without this right in, right out. We only have two options for a second entrance point. The first one would be off Manowar. There's just not that much space, and Casey's going to kill me the next time I bring a right in, right out off Manowar. I know that that is to be true. So we're stuck with Polo Club. What do we know about Polo Club? We have over 800 feet of frontage off of it. You heard staff say that they are okay with the actual location of this right in, right out. That is because the subdivision regulations basically provide that you need 200 feet for the right in. We're giving you over 400. The right out needs only 150 feet. Again, we're doing over 400. We are doubling up what is required in subdivision regulations for a write-in, write-out intersection. Staff's good with the location. We also heard that traffic engineering approves the design of the write-in, write-out. The biggest key factor there, Tom mentioned it, it's the raised median. There are danger in every type of access point. Having that raised median takes away the real risk, the trying to take a left out of the right out. That's the real problem here. We think a majority of the people will be using the intersection at Fitzgerald to basically take a left out of our property and head to Manowar. There might be some people in light traffic that try to scurry across two lanes in order to get to the light. But again, we think that will be kind of minimal, especially when you consider the distance that people will have to travel from that right in, right out. It's only a couple hundred more feet. And so we really do not anticipate that much people to do it. Again, traffic's good with the design. One of the key points in there is we added this deceleration lane. Throughout this process, we have heard the reason why you want to control access on these collectors is we don't want another Sir Martin. Sir Barton was designed to be a collector, and it ends up functioning like a local street because there are so many quick right turns. It backs up traffic. This is where the deceleration lane comes in handy. We're adding an extra 200 feet so people can get off Polo Club and then get into our property. There are still two lanes going unimpeded past our property that will not be impacted by this right end. This isn't going to be slowing down traffic. like Sir Barton. Also, we're able to split the traffic. That's always a good thing. When you're having the site access, you don't want all of the beds going to one intersection of a collector in a local street. Being able to take at least half the traffic right away before that intersection, that's again, that's just good planning. Now, the other concern on doing this is, well, if we grant you all a write-in, we're going to have to do it right down the road. You all know there is no precedential impact in planning and zoning. There's been way too many cases that have proven just because you gave it to me, you don't have to give it to the next guy. It's site-specific. It matters about the criteria of the location, the specifics of the project. There is no precedential impact here. While there might be write-in, write-outs that are appropriate down polo club, it's going to entirely depend on the development plan that's going to have to come before you all. You hold the keys of the kingdom. This is why we have the waiver requests. And so you don't have to worry about that. Traffic's good with the design. Staff's good with the location. It's not going to create downstream issues. And there's no, there's no precedential impact down the road. So the only other thing that we have heard that is remotely concerning about this is whether this complies with the original deal that was struck for access points. The 800-500-500 does not restrict write-in, write-out access points. You don't have to take my word for it. When this development plan that basically created Polo Club came before, when the deal was struck for the 800-500-500 access points. It's very specific. It only involves full intersections. This plane basically came before you all August 23, 2007. Since Frank Penn's here, not here, I can tell you all that you were much too young to have been here. So I am going to read three sentences. I do apologize for having to read directly, but stay with me. The key thing here is median openings. The petitioner met with staff in the Division of Traffic Engineering to discuss the median openings along Polo Club Boulevard because there were concerns that those openings must be well regulated in order to maintain traffic flow and safe driving conditions. Again, it's the median openings that cause issues for the traffic. The petitioner agreed to provide a minimum of 800 feet of spacing between the Polo Club Boulevard intersection and the first median opening. We're still doing that. After that initial 800 feet, any full access associated with a median cut must be sited 500 feet from the nearest access. All of this is depending on full intersections. Right in, right outs were always considered to be available in the future because the very next sentence it says, there may be other spacing requirements, including the possibility of right-in, right-out intersections that are not proposed to require median cuts. That was the original deal. It has kind of been forgotten since then. Just everyone thinks 800, 500, 500, that's access spacing. It's not. It's full intersections. So we would argue that we are in full compliance with the EAMP in that regard. Traffic's good with the location. Traffic's good with, excuse me, the design. Planning's good with the location. You're not dealing with downstream issues. You don't have to worry about precedential impact. And there's no worry about violating any secret deal that was made back when Polo Club actually was recorded. Quite frankly, it's just good planning to have a write-in, write-out in this location. I'm happy to take any questions. Again, we can talk about anything on the development plan, but I really only wanted to discuss the main issues of concern until I got any questions. All right. Are there any questions? Yes. I have a question. Tom referenced enhanced landscaping. Yes. And I guess I'm more aware of this now that the will is come to our door for the end of October. Absolutely. I see areas where we have failed miserably, even across the street, I think it's severely lacking. So I wondered if you all would consider, please, enhanced landscaping on manal war. Okay. Thank you. And we do have to submit a landscaping plan, and so we will make sure to keep that in. All right. Any other questions? Okay. I'm going to turn it over to the commission we probably need a motion we do need a motion on the revised staff recommendations and let's just take a separate motion for our EAMP compliance finding and for the waiver you can put the finding and the waiver in same motion you going to make it? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2015-58 Hamburg East Waterstone at Hamburg with the conditions listed in the revised recommendations. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second for approval. Everybody vote. That motion carries. Okay. You may continue. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2015-58 Hamburg East Waterstone at Hamburg, the EAMP compliance report, and the findings for the petition for waiver of land subdivision regulations. Very well. I have a question. I'm going to second it, but before I do, do we need to add the staff recommendations to the EAMP? we adopt it through you drop adopting if you adopt the report not find report so that should be I think they're included yeah okay we have a motion in a second for approval everybody may vote that motion carries all right very well Thank you all. Thank you. I think it's talking. Go ahead. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the next item is DP 2015-59 Electronics Park, Parks Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 33. This is a final development plan for property located at 601 Bizzle Drive. I have any idea. This is the property located here. Bizzle Drive, ending in a cul-de-sac, comes in. Out here we have New Circle Road, down running parallel with the property. There's old Frankfort Pike with the detention center just a little further down. And, of course, this is Town Branch Creek running in front of the property. The proposal of this is to construct a 21,004-square-foot warehouse over an existing concrete pad, which you can see here and associated parking along the front here. Subdivision committee last week had recommended for postponement of this due to the fact that originally another warehouse was proposed here, which it was into the floodplain. And at that time, no variants had been submitted to deal with that. However, on the 12th, the applicant submitted some revisions to the plan. As you can see, they removed the warehouse that was in question. Because of that, we can offer you a new set of conditions and an approval recommendation for it. You can see on your agenda, or your handout, I'm sorry, the first ten are your usual typical sign-offs, engineering, traffic engineering, division of water quality for the cab. Number 11 is a small one. Just correct the floor area for the new building. Actually, if you do the dimensions on that, it's 21,004 square feet, so we just need to correct that and update the site statistics for it. And then number 12, just denote any existing or proposed easements on the property. With that, I can turn it over to you for any questions or comments. All right. Are there any questions? All right. This looks pretty easy. Seeing none, we'll hear from the applicant. Good afternoon. Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. We're in agreement with the 12 conditions, so ask for your approval. All right. That's a good report. That's what they teach you to say it first, didn't it? Just get up there and say that. All right. Can we get a motion? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of DP 2015-59 with the 12 revised staff conditions. Second. Okay, we have a motion for approval in a second. Everybody vote. It's already in voting. All right. Very well. That passes. Okay. Now we need... Is that all the development plans? Okay. Joe wants to make a motion for us. Mr. Chair, I move for the release of the call bonds. Okay, very well. You're moving for approval and release of the call bonds. We have a second. Carolyn? Okay. Second. Everybody vote. That motion carries. Okay, at this time. We're just about done. Is there anything from the staff? Mr. Chairman, just a reminder, there is not a work session next week. You have the week off. We'll see you in two weeks. Thank you. All right. Very well. So we can entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. I'll make it. Second. Second. Next week.