# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - February 14, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · February 14, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/378 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/378?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-02-14 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 2, 2026 - **Length**: 9,220 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on February 14, 2008, at 1:34 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding as chair. The commission addressed three main agenda items during the session, including the approval of minutes, postponements or withdrawals, and land subdivision items. The meeting resulted in 21 motions and votes being taken throughout the proceedings, with the commission approving the minutes and land subdivision items while tabling the postponements or withdrawals item. No public comments were heard during this session, indicating the meeting focused primarily on administrative and procedural matters related to planning and development issues within the urban county jurisdiction. ## Attendance The Commission meeting on February 14, 2008 had seven members present and four members absent. **Present:** • Randall Vaughn • Linda Godfrey • Carolyn Richardson • Joan Whitman • Lynn Roche-Phillips (arrived late) • Lyle Aten • Frank Penn **Absent:** • Ed Holmes • James Mahan • Mike Cravens • Neill Day **Late Arrival:** • Lynn Roche-Phillips The meeting proceeded with a quorum of seven commissioners in attendance, though one member arrived after the scheduled start time. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission conducted 21 votes during the February 14, 2008 meeting, with all motions receiving unanimous support from the seven members present: Randall Vaughn, Linda Godfrey, Carolyn Richardson, Joan Whitman, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Lyle Aten, and Frank Penn. **Administrative Actions** The meeting began with approval of minutes from November 29, 2007 and January 17, 2008. Joan Whitman motioned and Linda Godfrey seconded, with the motion passing 6-0 by voice vote. **Postponements** Six development plans were postponed unanimously: • PLAN 2008-9P (Hillenmeyer Property) - motioned by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Carolyn Richardson • PLAN 2007-52P (Tuscany, Unit 5) - motioned by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Carolyn Richardson • ZDP 2007-111 (The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4) - motioned by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Carolyn Richardson • PLAN 2007-201F (NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 16) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Lyle Aten • DP 2008-20 (The Landings) - motioned by Lyle Aten, seconded by Joan Whitman • DP 2006-137 (Providence Place & Interstate Service Center, Unit 6) - motioned by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Linda Godfrey **Approved Development Plans** Fourteen plans received approval, all passing 7-0: • PLAN 2007-03F (Faith Community Housing reapproval) - subject to previous conditions • DP 2008-23 (White Towers) - subject to staff conditions • DP 2008-11 (Louis Hillenmeyer Property) - subject to staff conditions • PLAN 2008-8P (Hougham Subdivision) - subject to staff conditions • PLAN 2007-07F (Lochmere Estates, Unit 1-B reapproval) - subject to staff conditions plus two additional conditions • Four Denton Farm units (PLAN 2008-13F through 2008-16F) - all subject to staff conditions • DP 2007-139 (Lansdowne-Shadeland, Unit 3) - subject to staff conditions • DP 2008-18 (Hamburg Place commercial areas) - subject to staff conditions • DP 2008-19 (Ingleside Apartments) - subject to staff conditions • Two Lexitonian Estates consolidation plans (PLAN 2008-17C and 2008-18C) - subject to urban forester approval of modified tree preservation plans ## Approval of Minutes The Commission reviewed and approved minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under consideration were from the meetings held on November 29, 2007, and January 17, 2008. Joan Whitman and Linda Godfrey were the key speakers who participated in the discussion of the minutes. The Commission members reviewed the documentation from both meetings to ensure accuracy and completeness before taking action. Following the review process, the Commission voted to approve the minutes from both meetings. No specific concerns or corrections were noted during the discussion, and the approval process proceeded without complications. The approval of these minutes allows them to become part of the official record of the Commission's proceedings, documenting the decisions and discussions that took place during the November 29, 2007, and January 17, 2008, meetings. ## Postponements or Withdrawals The Planning Commission addressed multiple development plans that required postponement to the March 13, 2008 meeting. Several key speakers participated in the discussion of these postponements, including Linda Godfrey, Carolyn Richardson, Frank Penn, and Lyle Aten. The following development projects were postponed: • **Hillenmeyer Property** - Development plan requiring additional review time • **Tuscany Unit 5** - Residential development project needing further consideration • **The Glen at Lochdale** - Development proposal postponed for additional planning review • **NDC Property** - Commercial or mixed-use development requiring extended review period • **The Landings** - Development project needing more time for staff and commission review • **Providence Place & Interstate Service Center** - Commercial development project postponed for further analysis The postponements were necessary to allow adequate time for staff review, applicant revisions, or additional information gathering. All postponed items were rescheduled for consideration at the Planning Commission's next regular meeting on March 13, 2008. The commission formally tabled these agenda items, ensuring they would receive proper consideration at the subsequent meeting. This action allowed the commission to maintain its review standards while providing applicants and staff additional time to address any outstanding issues or concerns related to the proposed developments. The postponements affected a diverse range of development types, from residential subdivisions to commercial service centers, indicating the variety of projects under review by the Planning Commission during this period. ## Land Subdivision Items The Commission reviewed and approved multiple subdivision plans during this meeting. Key speakers included Linda Godfrey, Joan Whitman, Lyle Aten, and Frank Penn, who presented various development proposals for consideration. The subdivision plans discussed encompassed a diverse range of residential developments across the area: • **Faith Community Housing** - A community-focused residential development • **White Towers** - Subdivision plan requiring commission approval • **Louis Hillenmeyer Property** - Development of property associated with the Hillenmeyer name • **Hougham Subdivision** - Residential subdivision proposal • **Lochmere Estates** - Estate-style residential development • **Denton Farm** - Farm property conversion to residential use • **Lansdowne-Shadeland** - Multi-area subdivision development • **Hamburg Place** - Commercial or mixed-use development area • **Ingleside Apartments** - Multi-family residential project • **Lexitonian Estates** - Estate residential development The speakers presented details on each subdivision, likely including lot configurations, infrastructure requirements, zoning compliance, and development timelines. The Commission evaluated each proposal based on standard subdivision criteria such as street layouts, utility access, drainage considerations, and compliance with local development regulations. All subdivision plans presented during this session received approval from the Commission. The variety of projects - ranging from single-family estates to apartment complexes and mixed-use developments - indicates active residential and commercial growth in the jurisdiction. The approvals allow the developers to proceed with their respective projects according to the submitted plans and any conditions specified by the Commission. The comprehensive review and approval of these ten subdivision items demonstrates the Commission's ongoing role in managing local development and ensuring new residential and commercial projects meet established planning standards. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of minutes from November 29, 2007 and January 17, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-9P** — postponed (6-0): Postponement of Hillenmeyer Property plan - **PLAN 2007-52P** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Tuscany, Unit 5 plan - **ZDP 2007-111** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 plan - **PLAN 2007-201F** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 16 plan - **DP 2008-20** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of The Landings plan - **DP 2006-137** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Providence Place & Interstate Service Center, Unit 6 plan - **PLAN 2007-03F** — passed (7-0): Reapproval of Faith Community Housing plan - **DP 2008-23** — passed (7-0): Approval of White Towers plan - **DP 2008-11** — passed (7-0): Approval of Louis Hillenmeyer Property plan - **PLAN 2008-8P** — passed (7-0): Approval of Hougham Subdivision plan - **PLAN 2007-07F** — passed (7-0): Reapproval of Lochmere Estates, Unit 1-B plan - **PLAN 2008-13F** — passed (7-0): Approval of Denton Farm, Inc., Unit 3A, Lots 31-34 plan - **PLAN 2008-14F** — passed (7-0): Approval of Denton Farm, Inc., Unit 3B, Lots 27-30 plan - **PLAN 2008-15F** — passed (7-0): Approval of Denton Farm, Inc., Unit 4A, Lots 19 and 20 and 23-26 plan - **PLAN 2008-16F** — passed (7-0): Approval of Denton Farm, Inc., Unit 4B, Lots 12-18, 21 and 22 plan - **DP 2007-139** — passed (7-0): Approval of Lansdowne-Shadeland, Unit 3 plan - **DP 2008-18** — passed (7-0): Approval of Hamburg Place, B-5P and B-6P Area Highway Commercial plan - **DP 2008-19** — passed (7-0): Approval of Ingleside Apartments plan - **PLAN 2008-17C** — passed (7-0): Approval of Lexitonian Estates consolidation plan - **PLAN 2008-18C** — passed (7-0): Approval of Lexitonian Estates consolidation plan --- ## Full transcript Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают Девушки отдыхают width and so forth of limestone? What lanes will we have created there? It is not well delineated on the cross section, Mr. Ayton, however, they are calling for a full sized turn lane to come through here to allow traffic off of limestone to turn in and therefore not impede this flow of traffic. Through here? I believe I am going to defer that question to their engineer. I think they would be best qualified to describe that to you. Mr. Martin, I have one question, I guess, before the petitioner comes up. The six foot sidewalk, does it show up in your waiver request, does it show up on the plan itself? They are showing a sidewalk at four feet. We met with them and we said no, we felt six feet was more appropriate. They have verbally agreed to that. It will need to be on the plan and it is, of course, in the conditions for approval with your waiver. In the conditions, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin and the petitioner? Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members, my name is Seth Farmer, I am with CDP. The taper along North Limestone starts at the end of the radius from New Circle Road, which is roughly right through here, and it tapers. Right now the existing road is about 17 feet wide and we are widening out to 22 feet to our exit point to accommodate cars pulling into our site, plus there have been some issues with the dry cleaner on the opposite side of North Limestone, so it would allow vehicles to navigate around cars that are trying to pull into the dry cleaner as well. What configuration do you have there? You have a through lane, two through lanes going straight through the intersection, and then you have a left turn lane going north and a right turn lane going north, right? And you are going to add more pavement to that? Yes, inbound, tapering towards our property, zero near the entrance, New Circle and North Limestone, and then tapering out to about 3 to 5 feet back in this area here. You will begin tapering on the property that you do not own, adjacent to? It's within the right-of-way. Within the right-of-way? Yes. Okay. It's difficult to see on this plan, but this bold lawn through here is the property lawn, so everything inside is in the right-of-way. Could we have Jeff review this with you, with us? Because I'm not really clear about how these little transitions are going to happen. That's a very short distance between New Circle Road and where you're indicating an entry. I guess I'll go right up here to the site plan. Basically, they're adding enough width, it's about 4 to 6 feet, to get 22 feet of pavement up until it gets past the dry cleaner's entrance, and then they'll taper it back in. Essentially, you would be able to... It's almost like a bypass lane, but if there are cars wanting to turn left, instead of vehicles backing up out into New Circle Road, they would be able to get around them over to the right. We don't anticipate there being a whole lot of traffic turning right into the car wash, so it seems like a mitigating factor to fix a problem that's already there as a part of this plan. So, it's actually a widening of the pavement section as opposed to a paternal lane? Yes, it would be just allowing options if anybody stopped there, because invariably you'll get people that stop there and people won't let them through, so this would allow traffic to keep moving away from New Circle. Mr. Penn? Jeff, while you're there, if you're coming down North Limestone, going toward New Circle Road, are you going to be allowed to turn left into that car wash? Yes, you will. Or right into the dry cleaner's, either one? Yes, you would essentially just get in. The left turn lane for New Circle Road extends almost back up into this area here, so what cars would do now and after this gets developed is just get in the left turn lane as if they were going to New Circle, but they would be able to turn on into this property. So, what does this amount to as far as width of additional pavement then for these transitions? It's a little bit hard to tell from this plan, but what they're going to do, according to the survey, is where the double yellow line is here now, they will make sure there's 22 feet of pavement. That way we get two 11-foot lanes departing from the intersection up until past their entrance and then it would taper back in. There's a left turn lane going North onto New Circle Road. Yes. It would not impact that. It would stay as-is. Thank you, Mr. Neal. Any questions, additional questions for Jeff? Ms. Phillips? Will there be a bike lane? No, there's no bike lane plan for this section. Thank you. It may come at a later date with the comprehensive small area plan, but not with this plan. With the 11 feet of pavement on either side of the center line, we would have enough room that we could stripe a bike lane if it come to it, couldn't we? There would be enough pavement there for options if the bike lane got extended on up towards town. Thank you, Jeff. Petitioner, do you have any additional information to add or? I would just like to state that we agree to the conditions and request approval. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application? Okay. Okay. At this time, we have a recommendation for approval by the Subdivision Committee of ten conditions, condition ten being the provided we grant a waiver of the subdivision regs. Mr. Martin, you have something? Mr. Chairman, after this discussion, as a point of clarification under your recommendations on your waiver report, Jeff and I just discussed that the requirement number one could be changed to state that the applicant construct improvements to North Limestone to the approval of traffic engineering, and that will allow then the type of improvements they're discussing to be constructed to their approval, as opposed to that specific statement, a turn lane. That would make it clearer. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I'll turn to the Commission to see if there's any additional comment or questions at this time. Motion? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for approval of DP 2008-13 with nine conditions as noted and granting the waiver and changing number ten to reflect the granting of the waiver based on the staff's report and the reasons noted by staff with the additional requirements for the sidewalk and the improvements to New Circle Road. Improvements to North Limestone? I mean to North Limestone, I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Okay. We have a motion and second to approve. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. No. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'd just like to thank everyone, and we really look forward to coming to Lexington. Thank you. Appreciate it. You all need a break? Okay. We'll take about a five, ten-minute break, give staff time to set up for the next one. Okay. Well, we have two for sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Two amended. This is an amended development plan. We're out in the Tuscany, in the interior of the area. We have Paschule Place that is coming off of Rosebud, old Rosebud, which is down here, and Paschule Place curves on through here for these units. This area has all been previously platted as single-family. It, however, did leave a gap of one lot in this area. In addition, we have Unit 3 over in here, and Unit 3 also has been previously platted in single-family homes. You may recall that Unit 3 then is next to Unit 6 that you just recently approved, the four plexes in that area, and the extension of old Rosebud, which is the Collector Street. We're up on the upper side of that now. This plan is proposing 32 condominium units structured in these buildings, as you can see here. The previous submittal was from here to here, and it was that submittal that had problems meeting the requirements of Chapter 9, which is a group residential project. It also was brought to the applicant's attention that there would be problems with solid waste service and similar items. They then submitted this revised plan showing Phase 2. Here is the access easement off of this street to serve these units. This is actually in, a part of this is in Unit 3, and you can see from a condition that we handed out that it will be necessary for them to amend Unit 3 and have it approved and certified prior to the certification of this plan. When this plan was initially reviewed, the Subdivision Committee did recommend approval subject to the 16 conditions that you see on your plan. These are standard conditions down through 12, 13, 14, and 15 reflect staff's concerns on the submission and its ability to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Although this is a step forward in meeting those, we are not prepared at this time to say that they have, and we want to stress that these conditions need to remain on your approval. You also, Item 16 addresses that access easement that I pointed out to you before, and it is necessary that you make a finding that that access easement will serve the units in Phase 2 of this development. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Yes, I believe, Mr. Penn, you have a question? So 17 is an additional condition that we have on? Yes, sir, it was a handout that you should have, a title, Tuscany Unit 2. Okay. I'll elaborate on that. Could you, yeah, I guess. Let me elaborate on that a little bit. In this area of Unit 3, they show a street pattern with single family homes, and down in here, there's a cul-de-sac with lots around it. Well, in order to meet the area requirements and the setback requirements in this unit, they've expanded, they're proposing to expand over into Unit 3. That will require the amendment of Unit 3, hence your revised condition. They will have to remove that cul-de-sac and that lighting pattern. You will have to approve that change, and that will have to happen prior to certification of the plan you see before you now. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Petitioner? Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I'd like to clarify something, I guess, on 17. When I spoke with staff earlier, they said I'd just have to have it, have Tuscany Unit 3's preliminary subdivision plan approved. I don't know why I have to have that one certified prior to certifying this one. That's my first question. That plan will need to be brought back to you as a continued discussion, and we believe it ought to be approved and certified because the prospect of improvement plans and that sort of thing based on that plan. Again, plans, as we see today, can be amended and subject to change. We want to have the change clearly identified on both units, Unit 3 and Unit 2. Do we have a copy of the former plan? Is there a copy of the former plan? There is, yes, sir. I'll have to check. I don't see how the... What has changed here? I'm sorry. Are you asking what has changed on the Unit 3 plan, which isn't up here yet today? There is, what you see here is the access easement cul-de-sac on Unit 3's subdivision plan, which is strictly single-family homes. It is shown as a cul-de-sac, public cul-de-sac with houses. To get these fourplexes to fit on here with the extra required setbacks that you get with Article 9, they needed more land. From Unit 3, single-family, we took the cul-de-sac away from there and we're adding it here so that we can get our setbacks and do these multifamily fourplexes. I'm perfectly willing, as soon as this plan is approved next month, I will have Unit 3 preliminary subdivision plan in here for re-discussion, subtracting off that area, but I don't see why I have to... I mean, we're pushing for this. We want to get this done. I don't see why I have to have Unit 3 certified. As long as you have approved it, I can't get it certified any other way. So I think I can get that one approved by you while I'm working on certifying this for the next month. The public street that is required, that would serve the access easement is shown on this plan, so there's no infrastructure from Unit 3 that has to be done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Any other questions for Mr. Cayley? I do have another question. Oh, okay. And this is... I guess we make sure to note that it's 32 units, not the 20 in the note. And then this is causing me problems on other plans I'm having. Items 13, 14, and 15, which all resolve my setbacks, my compliance with my parking and my coverage. If I get building inspection sign-off, I'm assuming I've met those resolutions or it's been resolved because I've had building inspections sign off. And I'm trying to save myself a headache down the road. If there is something more specific than just building inspection sign-off, I want to know what it is. I'll be happy to answer that for you. That is our responsibility to determine that those conditions of Article 9 be met. It's not building inspection's responsibility. That is planning division's responsibility. And we will check those things, and we will verify that they have been met. And that's not to say that the inspectors in building inspection won't look at those things, because they certainly will look at those things. But it is our staff's responsibility to see that the requirements of the ordinance are met. And that's why we think they need to stay there. And that's for 13, 14, and 15, correct? That's those three? Yes, sir, that is. I would also like to add that I talked with Mr. Sally, and I will clarify that on the certification of Unit 3, that has not currently been certified. It actually has been approved, but not certified. So we could actually allow the amendment as a re-discussion item to be approved, but the plan does not necessarily have to be certified prior to this one. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Okay. Petitioner, anything additional you'd like to add? No, but I think that's it. Okay, great. Do we have any additional questions you'd like to ask? Do you need further clarification? Yes, there is one more thing. I'm sorry, I keep forgetting what I'm doing up here. I talked with staff about this. From subdivision committee meeting, worked with Solid Waste on the access easement you see and the turning around in there. Through an email that he sent me and he sent to planning staff, he asked that I make the island a little bit smaller, and he suggested that some parking in there would help make sure that no one's going to be parking where the garbage truck's going to have to circle. So even though it's not shown today, to Solid Waste sign-off, I will be adding parking spaces to that island inside the access easement. I just don't want that to not appear before you and then may not get certified. Okay, thank you. Any questions, Mr. Cayley, on that? All right, Ms. Godfrey, do you all need further clarification on that? Well, on number 17, you said we can, as long as it's approved, it doesn't have to be certified. Yes, ma'am, you are correct. It does not have to be certified prior to this plan. Just approved. We can change it provided that that amendment and associated lot is approved for the period there. You could draw a line through and certify. Certify. And just keep prior to certification of this plan. That's what we have up on the overhead. Correct, yes. Okay, all right. Okay, are there any additional questions, discussion? Okay, on the overhead, we have condition 17 that has been modified to say that the lot is approved prior to certification of the plan for unit 3. So, this time, we have 16 conditions for DP 2008-15 and an additional 17th condition. Note the amendment to add 32 units versus 20 units as noted in our agenda. With that, the chair will entertain a motion. I would move for approval of DP 2008-15 with the 16 conditions as noted and adding the number 17 as amended on the overhead. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve with the amendments on the overhead. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Tom, was that good enough? I mean, did their motion meet the findings? 16? Yes. Excuse me. I was zoned out. There should have been a mention of the finding in the motion. Do we need to resend the previous motion or just make an amendment to that motion? On number 16. You can clarify or amend the motion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It should be clarified or amend the motion. Okay. Number 16. That's correct. Yes. Okay, then I can offer an amendment to my motion. Okay. Number 16 is problematic but I'd say we could I'll amend my motion to approve based on 16 conditions and we would just I don't have direct findings for number 16. Did you do a finding, Tom? You would just need to say that you make a finding in favor of the access easement meeting. As it's presented on the plan Yes, ma'am. that we saw. Okay, that works. Okay. We have an amendment to the motion. Okay, Mr. Penn, second. All those in favor of the amendment to the motion, say aye. Opposed, say no. Amendment passes. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on your agenda Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission is directly below G it is HDP 2008-16 Griffin Gate Office Park This is located out on Newtown Pike It is the Red Cross building Here you can see the building. Here is Newtown Pike Here is the existing parking. Better Business Bureau sits back here. We have Citation Boulevard here Griffin Gate Boulevard and we just recently amended that development plan for the Starbucks you may recall out here in this area of that plan The purpose of this plan is to add this area of parking 34 spaces in this area of the development There is going to be relocated concrete flume into this detention basin here The subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan subject to nine conditions The first seven are very standard. Item number eight is addition of all development plan information that too is standard but what's happened over the years in these plans is that originally these two were together a subsequent zone change separated them. This is now governed by one plan. We want this information, the building and parking in this area included on this plan. So that's the purpose for that one Your next condition addresses landscaping and the concern there was with the addition of this parking in the front that we have the proper landscaping to buffer that hardscape relative to Newtown Pike That concern also arises out of the fact that the council is developing a landscape plan for Newtown Pike the boulevard and the gateway aspects of that road. So we have asked that a plan be prepared to show us what that landscaping will be We expect it to also meet the intent of the council's Newtown Pike ordinance And with that if there's any questions I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you Mr. Martin Any questions for Mr. Martin? Again I apologize I would quickly add you do have an additional handout It's a white one once again for Gryffindor It states that this plan supersedes a plan from 1986. There was a development plan approved back then but apparently not certified that amended this lot so this now incorporates that plan and will supersede it Thank you sir Any questions for Mr. Martin? Petitioner We have talked with Bob Carpenter in building inspection about item 9 landscape plan He told me what is proposed to be adopted. It's not adopted yet My client agreed to provide that landscaping and Bob requested that the landscape plan goes through him to be approved first and we'll do that and give a copy to planning Okay Thank you Any questions for Petitioner? Okay At this time Chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman I'd like to move for approval of DP 2008-16 Griffin Gate Office Park to include the 9 conditions listed on our staff report including the 10th condition that is shown on the white sheet as a revised staff recommendation We have a motion and a second to approve All those in favor say aye Opposed no Motion carries Thank you Okay at this time we'll have Chair call for performance bonds and letters of credit Mr. Chairman I'd like to move for releasing call of bonds as noted on the memorandum dated February 14 2008 from Ron St. Clair to Chris King I have a motion and a second to call and release and call of bonds All those in favor say aye Opposed no Acceptance Recent call of bonds accepted Okay we have another item It's an addendum to our agenda It's on the back page Item D We have some minor subdivision plans Hear from staff at this time There is an addendum under items for your agenda today if you'll give us a brief moment we'll set that up for you No problem All those in favor say aye Opposed no Acceptance Recent call of bonds accepted Okay we have another item It's an addendum under items for your agenda today if you'll give us a brief moment we'll set that up for you No problem Okay we have another item It's an addendum under items for your agenda today if you'll give us a brief moment we'll set that up for you No problem All those in favor say aye Opposed no Acceptance Recent call of bonds accepted Okay we have another item It's an addendum under items for your agenda today if you'll give us a brief moment we'll set that up for you No problem All those in favor say aye Opposed no Acceptance Good afternoon If you all would turn to page 12 On page 12 we have two plans 2008-17c and 2008-18c This is for the Lexitonian Estates which is located out off of Versailles Road just outside of New Circle Road We talked quite a bit about this as far as creating non-buildable areas so that we're able to protect the trees that they had out there. The plans that they brought in was a consolidation plan for two sections They wanted to consolidate some of the property and by doing that we're having an interruption with When they consolidated it, it took some of the trees that we were looking at to try to preserve If you look at the outline the new buildable area is the orange area and we have a property line that goes through the center we also have some yellow color that's the trees they're trying to protect and the green is how the buildable area line used to be This over here just shows you the different trees that we were trying to save some of them were 18, we have 24 inch trees The way they redid this as far as consolidating these lots together we felt that if they were going to lose the non-buildable area here in the center between two lots we were looking at possibly being able to cut off the portion that's done in pink so that we can replace that non-buildable part create that as a non-buildable part to save some additional trees on the outside of the buildable areas Mr. Penn, yes Out of the 16 lots that were there they're going to combine 6 of them? Yes sir They're wanting to create larger lots for homes so that they don't have the density that they were approved for These were just consolidation plots, that's why they're a minor plan and that's why we wanted to bring this in front of you because we were looking at the different trees that were going to wind up in the buildable area that we had put in the non-buildable area The orange is the buildable area that they're requesting now There's a gold line that goes through the center of that and that's where the two lots that they're wanting to combine In this figure here, this whole area here used to be non-buildable and now they're creating that as a buildable section in that property This lot here, they're not losing any trees On another one here, we have the orange is in the buildable area or is what their new buildable area they're wanting. These green lines here are what they used to be We were trying to save a tree that was located several trees that were located back here and so we figured that if we were to lose these trees, there's some additional trees on the outside of the property. We have a 36 inch and a 40 inch tree that we felt that if we're going to lose this so that we can create more buildable area we would like for the pink areas to be non-buildable areas to be able to save those trees So what you're doing is swapping out the non-buildable from the previous plan to a non-buildable of the revised plan that does have trees We're trying to protect the other trees that were on the outside of the property I'm sorry Ms. Whitman Oh well, those trees they were being saved in the original scheme weren't they? Not They were not like on this lot here, they were not because they were located so close to the center of the original lot that way they wouldn't have been able to create any buildable area so those trees were looking at to possibly being removed anyway Alright, Ms. Phelps Ms. Whitman Have some trees already been removed? I'm not sure I have a question I understand that the buildable area will now change but when does the tree ordinance kick in? Is there not the way I understand the tree ordinance and I'm not familiar with it as I should be but wouldn't the girth of trees that sit within that buildable area per the tree ordinance preclude their being able to remove those trees? We're just doubling up trying to make sure that we're not creating a buildable area I mean there are plenty of places those lots are going to be twice as big and there are plenty of places where a home could certainly be situated and if we were just to denote that we would like the trees to be preserved as per the That was part of our condition was on the first when the plan went in to be recorded and create the individual lots, there was a condition that they were to save trees unless there was a problem as far as them being diseased or dying, that sort of thing and then Tim Querrey was going to he made note of that Males Yes Ms. Phillips you have another question Well I was just going to ask if Mr. Querrey could explain to us how the tree ordinance applies on a lot by lot basis or if it does Actually I was going to ask the petitioner to speak before I do to sort of explain the situation here I was approached by the petitioner after this property exchanged hands and I don't know if that has been mentioned yet but I was going to follow up to that and I was going to ask Rory to explain it Okay, thank you Mr. Querrey Petitioner Rory Cayley with EA Partners short I feel like I keep repeating myself here Short history Ron Turner developed the property with his development and recording of the lots we had certain amount of trees that were removed for the utilities certain trees were removed for safety certain trees were removed for street building, all this activity recorded all the lots a gentleman came along he liked the existing house and he liked the property so much he bought everything every single piece has been bought by one new owner he is fixing up the existing house for himself and he would like to have less neighbors his basically private area here since he purchased this Mr. Turner probably should have removed more trees than he did Mr. Turner planted a bunch out near Versailles Road, if you've been out there there's a ton of new plantings all the street trees were put in what Mr. Turner had to do to go to record has been done and he left a bunch of trees there's several that the vines held them up there should have been more removed Mr. McClure, the new owner had an arborist come in there to verify which trees should be kept which ones should go they've done that work Tim Query has gone on site to look at it, I asked him to I sent him prints of this sign off this consolidation class, which I normally wouldn't do but I knew was an issue so I've sent prints to Tim to sign off on the new lots and the new building envelopes the building envelopes are being shown connected if I no longer have a property line I didn't know why I would have two separate building envelopes so I basically would connect them through it doesn't mean that if there's trees there they're going to be removed just because this gives this homeowner an opportunity to place his house we're talking million dollar plus homes, the landscaping that goes with these will certainly improve the area, if a tree or two does disappear, I know more than those will be put back in just simply on the type of houses that's going to be built I know we talk about protecting the trees and the tree protection ordinance I don't think the tree protection ordinance seems to want to save the property, if a developer comes in he's going to scrape everything he's going to put in tract houses 40 foot wide, he's going to come in there and just start from scratch with these being custom homes on custom lots I don't think you're going to get the wholesale tree removal that you're afraid of some of them are nice big trees some of them aren't, I think anyone who's going to be spending a million plus is going to position their house with the trees so what they've colored up is probably accurate the original exhibits that showed all the trees that was back before we even went in there to look and see if they were dead or healthy that was just from the zone change this is the trees on the ground so if we're talking about a specific tree I don't know if it's there today the arborist or the tree service came out there and reviewed it and removed it when the utilities were put in what they color green and red, I don't know if that tree still stands today so I don't know if we're actually going to protect a viable tree or not Ms. Phillips, do you have a question? Yes Does the tree protection ordinance address on a lot-by-lot basis is question number one and number two does Mr. McClure intend to, were restrictive covenants recorded at the time of the subdivision plat, is there any way that the restrictive covenants could speak to this issue and I recognize that we don't we don't enforce, we don't address restrictive covenants, it's a private arrangement between individuals but it was the spirit and intent of this commission when we undertook approval of this development initially was we recognized the significance of this property with respect to the age of the trees, the vitality of the trees and I would just hate to see our our efforts undermined especially you know the council, was it last week approved the ICLEA you know we're going to be looking at carbon footprint and trying to minimize map the carbon footprint for Lexington and do what we can to try to shrink our carbon output so anything that we can do cooperating with the property owner I think would be in everyone's best interest I'm sure that there were covenants done with Mr. Turner's original filing, I don't have them, typically I wouldn't get them, anyway it's kind of after me tree ordinance Tim can verify but our understanding of the tree ordinance is after I'm done with the site that means the homes are built the developer is gone, home builders are gone and everyone's living there at that point there is supposed to be 30% canopy for the total acreage if I had 100 acres developed there's 30 acres of canopy this can be either with trees saved or we can have a site you can have a farm where there's no trees or you can have crappy trees have trees or not to start with it is set up that if I plant an oak I get 750 square feet of credit for planting an oak if I plant a red bud I get 100 square feet of canopy credit for planting a red bud so at the end of the day you're supposed to have 30% we put notes on the plans saying how many square feet that 30% is if it's met with existing canopy, great typically when you're doing street trees and the ones I've had to do in the past it looks like when you're done with your home building lot and this is typical size, it's not these bigger ones if you have a blank site the street trees plus two large trees per house typically meets your 30% and that usually is well within the landscape budgets for all the new homes that go in and Tim can verify if I'm wrong Mr. Quarry if you could offer some the first thing I'd like to say is they've been very forthcoming with what they're doing out there I don't think this is any attempt in any way by the new developer to remove the trees that we have set aside to be preserved the fact of the matter is the former developer was such a tree hugger that every time that we met out on site he didn't want to remove any of the trees anywhere on the property and there was hazardous tree situations everywhere but given that the property is well over 100 years old and I kept kind of noting that this tree here probably needs to go well he didn't want to cut anything down as a matter of fact I think one time when we were out there a tree was being planted by a tree spade truck in the location of where one of his building units was to go and so I was wondering how they were actually going to build the houses when he's actually planting more trees so I guess in my opinion I feel like reducing the number of lots again, lesser density is going to allow for more of these trees that are actually there today to be preserved the arborist, the commercial arborist that he did hire marked the trees I had the opportunity before anything was ever cut down to go out there and take a look at what they had marked to be removed and I completely agreed again, we tried to convey that message to Mr. Turner but I understand the kind of development that he was trying to develop with the tree canopy he didn't want to cut a tree down anywhere but I think the new owner recognized that it's probably a liability on his part to build a house next to a tree that during a storm like we had last week could end up falling on the new house and he didn't want to take that chance I think to answer the question that was asked about the tree protection ordinance, does it apply to individual house lots? Yes it does in that if there's a tree protection area that has been set aside that may be just one tree and generally that may be only on one house lot so to answer your question, the tree protection ordinance does affect the individual lots on development sites. With that being said, I'm wondering, I appreciate that the individual who purchased Mr. McClure wants to consolidate lots doesn't want the density that was originally proposed but can we do it in a different way than just recombining, erasing a lot line that divides lots? Can we look at adjusting the entire plan to accommodate the trees that are there on site? That's a good question. This is a really easy way to reduce density but because of the significance of the vegetation on site I think it merits a second look and I also wanted to ask if it was appropriate for us to put a condition on the approval of this that they do try to work with the existing vegetation. Mr. Penn had a question. It's almost the reverse of what we're talking about and if you all want to talk more about the trees let's keep that line going. I want to go on. Is it a tree? I wanted to ask Tim a question on this. All trees are of the same value out here. I wondered if there had been some sort of determination as to which ones are the most valuable trees to be saved and worthwhile and does the plan reflect that sort of thing? That's something that we don't ordinarily get into but in accordance with the condition and species and their relationship and then the other thing that I'm concerned about is the requirements for placing any sort of structure, driveways and so forth in connection with the tree. You can have a good plan and say well that tree is going to be saved but it's two feet away from the foundation and it's going to be filled up four feet. That's a different thing. You've got to consider the ecological and the botanical aspect of that tree and its environment and this is one where we've given very careful consideration and you've given a lot of thought on this too and I think we need to go along with this same sort of thinking and every step of the way see that we're doing what we think we're doing on these larger scale plants and I go along with it if it matters, if it means changing the plan a little bit so that some of these trees and I think that an analysis in my view would be one where we designate those levels of value of these trees and then show how the plan then can be manipulated or created with those constraints. Is that too academic? The trees that I noted that they had marked for removal all of them had some kind of hazard associated with them. I think Rory had mentioned earlier that some of the black locusts that were marked were actually being held up by the euonymus that was growing on the trunk. But to some people a tree is a tree is a tree and we know that's not true and I think this developer recognized the problems with trying to preserve things that probably don't need to be preserved. I agree wholeheartedly that the ones that they were shown to remove, the healthy trees are not being touched. They're not being touched. In some cases, Tim, you can have the black locusts in clusters and groups and so forth held up by euonymus and it can be a valuable asset to the site. Those kinds of careful considerations I think should be made because we've got a lot of black locusts here in this county that's perfectly valuable. One of the things that I noticed when I first visited the site after the infrastructure had been built, there's a median as soon as you pull into the development and there's two sugar maple, mature sugar maples in this narrow median and when I first drove in, I noticed the disturbance to the trees and wondered, they probably won't live for another five years and the developer at the time was hoping that the trees would survive the disturbance and as I drove through the area and turned around, I noticed that both of them were completely hollow on the other side and wanted to go back to him and say, you know, you're creating a liability for yourself, but I think he had good intentions, he probably didn't recognize the problems with them like what I recognized and he was just trying any way he could to preserve every single tree on this property and it just wasn't practical. Thank you, Ms. Squirey. Ms. Convery, you had a question? Tree question? Yes, in terms of the tree preservation and what have you, I think that's probably why we have you as a sign off on here. It's because once the property's been analyzed and there's an adjustment to the plan, if you sign off on it, then that means that they've met all those safety issues and I'm thinking that number two is not even needed on here. Condition number two for this approval, I mean, to reestablish the tree preservation plan as previously approved, we just need to ensure that there is a tree preservation plan. Because the previously approved plan after analysis may not be appropriate or safe. So do we need to change that statement or delete it? On that condition, that refers to the exhibits that Ms. Galt presented, the areas that were currently tree preservation areas that we would recommend be added back on the two plats. Oh, okay. So that's based on this plan? Right. Mr. Squirey has said that item two is not necessary in his opinion, I believe is what I heard him say. But it does suggest that it's a modified tree preservation plan that he can sign off on that would address that as well? Condition one could still be approved independent of number two, yes. Okay. Okay. I was just wondering what staff felt about adding a condition that the tree preservation areas, regardless of lot lines, be maintained as per the original approval of the plan? That may not be appropriate. I mean, we have a full analysis here of what may or may not be appropriate and we have an expert on the staff to sign off on it. And I'm thinking if we add anything it would be to address maybe to change, but I think if we leave this number one and get rid of number two we might be okay. Because the main thing is we want to address tree preservation but we don't need to put restrictions out there that locks people in to something that may create a safety hazard down the road. Because anytime you disturb the soil you're going to kill the trees eventually. Doesn't this plan though reflect the trees that it does not? Okay. Tim is saying yes and Lori is saying no. I was going to add that the planning commission has the authority to make any tree removal or preservation a conditional note and I don't think that's the case on this particular plan. We've done that before on development sites. Meaning that if we want to lock in every tree that's existing on this property has to be preserved unless they get permission from me to remove it, we can do that. And that may be what you would want to do at this point. That sounds like what you're asking or I guess pointing out. We have Mr. Query who can do that for us. Right. Well he can approve the modified plan. Right. Yes. They would submit the plan to him and he could approve it and then you don't have to look at he would look at the trees and they would come back with a plan that says they have an acceptable tree preservation plan. Correct. Right. Looking at each individual tree. Right. They would still need permission from my office before they cut any tree on the property. And that would also apply to the homeowners once they purchase the homes. The note on the existing plats reads, and I left it on the consolidation as well, except for hazardous trees and those recognized as diseased and or dying trees in non-buildable areas shall be preserved. And what I turned in for these consolidation plats in no way did I go out there and try to figure out which tree stayed, which tree left. I left that up to the arborist and the tree service and just told Tim to go look at it. I think Ms. Godfrey is correct. If what we want to do is a new tree preservation plan based on what's out there, now that Mr. McClure is owning it and he's trying to get his reduced density in his new building envelopes, I think that's probably the most accurate and correct way to do it. I agree. But you're saying reword condition two, not delete it, right? No, I'm saying retain condition one and delete. Delete two? I guess I have a question for staff. Are you all comfortable with that? We would agree with that given the testimony today. Okay. All right. Okay. Mr. Penn had another question, not tree related. And I'll just direct this to staff. This is a matter of information. This is a whole new area for me. We had a lot of discussion about this site based on 16 lots. How many lots are we talking about? Okay. 17, 18 lots. Does this mean that we have zoned a piece of property with a density of 17 or 18 homes at one point? We didn't force a sidewalk. We had the trees. We did the whole presentation. It was a unique thing. Now we come back and we're going to combine three lots. Suppose we come back and combine eight lots. Is there a density issue here? I understand your point, Mr. Penn. It's at what point does the development result in something far different than the planning commission approved? I understand that question. And I know that gets away from the tree issue, but my concern is that if you're going to subdivide a piece of property, at the time you do it, all day long we increase, we make two buildable lots out of one, we do all kinds of stuff like that. Now this is just a flip side of it. Where does this kick in? Where do we re-evaluate this development plan based on what it was supposed to be versus what it is now? Is that a legitimate question for this discussion? I think it's a good question, Mr. Penn, but there's some points of law I think that probably need to come into play in that the subdivision or consolidation is a ministerial act. And if they meet the requirements of the regulations, they have a right to do that. Likewise, you could approve this with 17 lots. That does not preclude an individual from buying two or three lots, setting a house on one of those and doing absolutely nothing but sitting on the other. So you don't have the power to make someone build. But I do think your points are well taken. And I do think though if the character changes that you based other decisions on, you certainly have the right to review those kinds of things. And I'm not saying that three consolidations does that. What I'm saying to you is had we seen this plan, I don't know if we would have made the same decision or not. Now that doesn't mean we're going to go back and change it. I just never thought about it the other way. And I know this is on trees, and I know this is on consolidation. And Rory, I'm certainly not trying to kill your proposal here. It's just that all of a sudden the thought hit me that we were going to do 16, 17 homes in this area, and it's a pretty key piece of property in Fayette County. And I don't know whether we would have zoned this thing for three houses or not. But maybe that's immaterial. I don't know. The lawyer can call me. I don't know. Whatever. Well, it seems to me that a lot of that earlier discussion, we made sure that the lots next to Wesley Heights were big enough for conditions on how big they would be. That's it. And, you know, a lot of the stuff we said that it was essentially no connections, private development, very few homes, all those were also parts of reasons why we didn't do the sidewalks. And I think as we just decrease the number of people in there, all those other arguments are for us, again, is why we did such a unique layout, where it's essentially a driveway now for eight people, nine homes, whatever it's down to. Well, I think the key word Mr. King said was character. You know, I'm sitting here thinking, does this change the character? And to me, I don't see where a significant change in the character of what, and for us to, you know, I guess attempt to try to regulate that. That's not probably our purview at this point. So, but good point. Very good point, though. Ms. Godfrey, did you have a motion you wanted to make or a question? I'd like to recommend approval for these two plans, plan 2008-17C and plan 2008-18C based on the staff's recommendations maintaining condition number one for urban foresters approval of the modified tree preservation plan and deleting number two. Okay. I had one question. At what point is that modified tree preservation plan submitted? Is there a... That would need to be demonstrated to staff before we could certify the plan. Take it through Tim, have his sign off on it and then turn that over to planning. Okay. All right. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Interesting. Okay. I guess at this point, do we have any other staff items? I think that covers our commission items. Any staff items, Mr. King? Only one, Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether you'd call it a staff or commission item, but I want to inform the commission after consultation with the chair today. We don't have anything we need to bring to you other than maybe one small item which you're already reviewing, which is the bylaw amendment for your work session next week. We were suggesting that you might enjoy a winter holiday for one week and take next Thursday off if you need to amend your official meeting and filing schedule so that we can inform folks that you will not have a work session next Thursday, the 21st. So I think I heard a motion from Ms. Richards. Okay. Is there a second to I missed the vote. I missed the vote. Must be by general consensus. Was there a second to that motion? Yes. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. King. Do we have any audience items today? I can't see back there. Okay. You sure you don't have anything else to bring forward? Okay. Thank you very much. With that, is there a motion for adjournment? All right. Thank you.