# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - October 8, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 8, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3789 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3789?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-10-08 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 11,176 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 October 8, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included nine agenda items addressing various subdivision and property development proposals. The Commission took 12 motions and votes during the session and heard 3 public comments. Of the nine items on the agenda, four were approved, one was denied, three were postponed, and one was withdrawn. The approved items included Southend Park Unit 1 Section 1; Denton Farm Inc. Unit 4-A with multiple blocks and lots; Church of the Good Shepherd (Amended); and Blackford Property Phase 1 Unit 5 and Phase 3. The Commission denied the proposal for Bluegrass Business Park Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) and Burke, Hockensmith & Maggard Property Unit 5. Three items—Distillery District West Unit 1 (Pendery Financial LLC Property), High Point Subdivision (Monon Inc.), and Copper Creek Subdivision—were postponed for further consideration. The William Sheely Subdivision Unit 1 Block A Lot 2 and Unit 2 was withdrawn from consideration. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Carolyn Plumlee, Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Richardson, Frank Penn, and Patrick Brewer. **Absent:** Joe Smith. **Late arrivals:** None. ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during this meeting passed unanimously with 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. The following members voted in favor of all motions: Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Carolyn Plumlee, Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Richardson, Frank Penn, and Patrick Brewer. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:07:11] Minutes from August 13, 2015, and a portion of September 10, 2015 (CT 2015-1) were approved. Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy. **Postponements** - PLAN 2015-106F: Distillery District West, Unit 1 (Pendery Financial, LLC Property) was postponed to the November 12, 2015 meeting [timestamp: 0:08:18]. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Karen Mundy. - DP 2015-30: High Point Subdivision (Monon, Inc.) was postponed to the October 22, 2015 meeting [timestamp: 0:09:24]. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. - PLAN 2015-67P: Copper Creek Subdivision was postponed to the October 22, 2015 meeting [timestamp: 0:10:27]. Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy. **Withdrawal** PLAN 2015-107F: William Sheely Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 2 & Unit 2 was withdrawn [timestamp: 0:11:32]. Motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 0:16:55] Items on the Consent Agenda were approved, with DP 2015-92 (Church of the Good Shepherd) removed for further discussion. Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. **Reapprovals** - PLAN 2013-122F: Southend Park, Unit 1, Section 1 was reapproved subject to original conditions 1-7 & 9, with prior approval of waiver noted [timestamp: 0:22:12]. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Patrick Brewer. - PLAN 2011-8F: Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 4-A, Block J, Lots 26-30; Block L, Lots 31-35 was reapproved subject to original conditions 1-7 & 9 [timestamp: 0:24:53]. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Mike Cravens. **Disapproval** DP 2015-55: Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) & Burke, Hockensmith & Maggard Property, Unit 5 was disapproved based on staff recommendation due to unresolved issues with sanitary sewer, stormwater, access, zoning compliance, and public welfare [timestamp: 0:41:29]. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Patrick Brewer. **Approval with Conditions** DP 2015-92: Church of the Good Shepherd (Amended) was approved with 16 conditions including record plat information, labeling corrections, and technical committee review [timestamp: 1:15:47]. Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. **Extension** DP 2011-41: Blackford Property, Phase 1, Unit 5 & Phase 3 was approved for a one-year extension subject to staff recommendation and evidence of progress in development [timestamp: 1:23:04]. Motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Patrick Brewer. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 1:26:15] ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed the following financial matter: **Performance Bonds – Blackford Property Development** A memorandum dated October 8, 2015 was presented regarding the release and call of performance bonds for the Blackford Property development. No specific dollar amount was specified in the documentation provided for this action. ## Public Comment Three public comments were made regarding the Church of the Good Shepherd columbarium project. **Kevin Murphy** raised concerns about the columbarium relocation in two separate comments: - [timestamp: 0:46:04] Murphy expressed concern that relocating the columbarium to Bell Court represents a backdoor method to avoid public notice and Board of Adjustment approval. He requested either disapproval of the relocation or that the columbarium be returned to its original site. - [timestamp: 1:08:02] Murphy raised additional concerns about past events spilling into Bell Court and questioned the appropriateness of relocating the columbarium to the street-facing side. **Mark Arnold** provided a response addressing the design and approval process: - [timestamp: 0:56:02] Arnold explained the careful design and location of the new columbarium, noting that it was positioned to minimize visual impact and ensure privacy. He confirmed that the design had received Board of Architectural Review approval and met compliance requirements. ## Contested Items **Church of the Good Shepherd Columbarium Relocation** A member of the public raised concerns about the relocation of the Church of the Good Shepherd Columbarium, arguing that the project had bypassed required procedural safeguards. The objector characterized the relocation as a "backdoor" method to avoid necessary public notice and Board of Adjustment approval requirements. **Bluegrass Business Park Development** A procedural dispute emerged regarding the Bluegrass Business Park Development. Staff recommended disapproval of the project, citing unresolved infrastructure issues including sanitary sewer, stormwater, and access concerns. Despite multiple follow-ups from staff, the applicant had not provided the necessary documentation to address these outstanding issues at the time of the meeting. ## Distillery District West, Unit 1 (Pendery Financial, LLC Property) **Plan 2015-106F** The Commission discussed the Distillery District West, Unit 1 project on the Pendery Financial, LLC property. [timestamp: 0:08:18] Justin Drury presented the item to the Commission. The primary issue preventing approval was the lack of sanitary sewer service to the property. Due to this infrastructure constraint, the applicant requested a one-month postponement of the agenda item. The Commission approved the requested postponement, allowing the applicant additional time to address the sanitary sewer service requirement before the item would be reconsidered. ## High Point Subdivision (Monon, Inc.) **Identifier:** DP 2015-30 **Type:** Discussion [timestamp: 09:24] The body considered the High Point Subdivision proposal by Monon, Inc. during this meeting. Myke Robbins was the key speaker on this agenda item. The discussion identified concerns regarding the proposed use and its compatibility with zoning regulations. Specifically, the proposed use was determined not to be allowed in the B-3 zone, which presented a significant issue for the project as presented. In response to these zoning concerns, the applicant requested a postponement of the item to allow for further review and potential modifications. The body approved the applicant's request to postpone consideration of this matter to the October 22 meeting. **Outcome:** Postponed to October 22, 2015 ## Copper Creek Subdivision **Plan 2015-67P** The Copper Creek Subdivision was presented as a discussion item during the meeting. Chris Clendenen was the key speaker on this agenda item [timestamp: 0:10:27]. **Concerns Raised** The discussion identified two primary unresolved issues with the subdivision proposal: - Street alignment concerns - Lack of tree protection areas **Outcome** The applicant requested a two-week postponement to address these concerns. The request was approved, and the item was postponed. ## William Sheely Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 2 & Unit 2 **Plan 2015-107F** This agenda item was withdrawn at the applicant's request. [timestamp: 0:11:32] Staff confirmed receipt of an email from the applicant's engineer prior to the meeting. Bill Sallee addressed this item. **Outcome:** Withdrawn ## Southend Park, Unit 1, Section 1 **Identifier:** PLAN 2013-122F The meeting included discussion and reapproval of Southend Park, Unit 1, Section 1 [timestamp: 0:18:20]. Tom Martin was the key speaker on this agenda item. The project was reapproved with conditions. A significant aspect of the discussion involved the engineer's certification waiver. Staff confirmed that a waiver for the engineer's certification had previously been approved and was being reapproved as part of the current action. The outcome of the discussion was approval of the item. ## Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 4-A, Block J, Lots 26-30; Block L, Lots 31-35 **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2011-8F **Item Type:** Discussion Cheryl Gallt presented this agenda item, which involved the reapproval of the Denton Farm, Inc. development plan for Unit 4-A [timestamp: 0:22:45]. The discussion focused on administrative updates and corrections to the previously approved project. **Key Actions and Conditions** The plan was reapproved with several conditions. These included corrections to the plan title, adjustments to exactions, and other administrative updates necessary to bring the documentation into compliance with current requirements. **Infrastructure and Capacity Assurance** Staff confirmed that the project was exempt from the Capacity Assurance Program due to existing infrastructure already being in place to serve the development. This determination eliminated the need for additional capacity assurance requirements for the project. **Outcome** The item was approved with the specified conditions and administrative corrections in place. ## Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) & Burke, Hockensmith & Maggard Property, Unit 5 **Agenda Item:** DP 2015-55 **Overview** The board discussed a development proposal for Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) and the Burke, Hockensmith & Maggard Property, Unit 5. [timestamp: 0:26:10] **Key Speaker** Tom Martin presented information on this agenda item. **Concerns Raised** Staff identified five key reasons for recommending disapproval of the proposal: - Lack of sanitary sewer confirmation - Stormwater management concerns - Unclear access arrangements These unresolved issues prevented staff from recommending approval of the development plan. **Outcome** The proposal was **denied**. The board did not approve DP 2015-55 based on the staff recommendation and the outstanding issues that had not been adequately addressed. ## Church of the Good Shepherd (Amended) **Identifier:** DP 2015-92 **Overview** The Church of the Good Shepherd (Amended) proposal was discussed and approved during this meeting. [timestamp: 0:42:06] **Key Speakers** - Kevin Murphy - Mark Arnold **Discussion and Outcome** The item was approved with 16 conditions. These conditions included corrections to plan notes, labeling requirements, and technical committee review. **Public Comment** Public comment raised concerns regarding procedural fairness and street use related to the proposal. **Result** The proposal was approved with the 16 specified conditions. ## Blackford Property, Phase 1, Unit 5 & Phase 3 **Identifier:** DP 2011-41 Rory Kaley presented this agenda item regarding the Blackford Property development, which sought approval for a one-year extension [timestamp: 1:17:54]. **Staff Findings** Staff confirmed that the applicant had demonstrated progress on the project and was in compliance with subdivision regulations. Evidence of this progress included final plats that had been filed for the center portion of the property. **Outcome** The item was approved for a one-year extension based on the documented evidence of progress and regulatory compliance. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of minutes from August 13, 2015, and a portion of September 10, 2015 (CT 2015-1) - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of PLAN 2015-106F: Distillery District West, Unit 1 (Pendery Financial, LLC Property) to the November 12, 2015, meeting - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2015-30: High Point Subdivision (Monon, Inc.) to the October 22, 2015, meeting - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of PLAN 2015-67P: Copper Creek Subdivision to the October 22, 2015, meeting - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Withdrawal of PLAN 2015-107F: William Sheely Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 2 & Unit 2 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of items on the Consent Agenda, removing DP 2015-92 (Church of the Good Shepherd) for further discussion - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Reapproval of PLAN 2013-122F: Southend Park, Unit 1, Section 1, including re-approval of the waiver - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Reapproval of PLAN 2011-8F: Denton Farm, Inc. Unit 4-A, Block J, Lots 26-30; Block L, Lots 31-35 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Disapproval of DP 2015-55: Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm) & Burke, Hockensmith & Maggard Property, Unit 5 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of DP 2015-92: Church of the Good Shepherd (Amended), with 16 conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of one-year extension for DP 2011-41: Blackford Property, Phase 1, Unit 5 & Phase 3 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Adjournment of the meeting --- ## Full transcript I went to private schools in Louisville. I'm well educated. I had every opportunity in life, but addiction does not discriminate. It does not discriminate. I think it's just a preconceived notion that we pigeonhole what an addict should look like, and we need to bust through that misconception definitely. I think people want to see the image of the heroin addict in an alley behind a dumpster getting high and that's what I remember as a kid. That's just not accurate. In Louisville alone since 2011 we've had a 650 percent increase in heroin deaths so it's affecting everybody. Our fastest growing population is young men and women age 18 to 25, most of them from good families. I was working for an attorney in Cincinnati wearing a suit and tie to work every day and shooting heroin in the bathroom, you know, and nobody knew. Where it is a disease exactly like cancer or leukemia or what have you, it can strike anyone at any time no matter your your age your race your socioeconomic status it does not discriminate doesn't discriminate who it affects and who it hurts it is a disease and i feel like the stigma associated with drug addiction it's not even there with other addictions. Like to me, even, even alcoholics don't have that. They, people don't look at them the same as they look at a drug addict. Like that's the lowest of the low. I feel like some people, a lot of people feel like even a gambling addiction is not looked at, sex addiction is not looked at the same. So I feel like if we can get away from that, even for the addict, I feel like they even feel that way about themselves because it's been ingrained. I guess he just went into hiding for a while while the addiction took over. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ I will call this meeting to order. First on our agenda are approval of minutes, minutes from August 13, 2015 and September 10, 2015. I understand that I believe there's been one correction that's been noted on the August 13th. I have not heard any from September 10th. If commission members have any, please let it be known now, or I will entertain a motion for approval of both. Yes, ma'am. Move approval of minutes of August 13th and August 10th, 2015. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of minutes from August 13th and September 10th, 2015. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Oh, there's issues. Everyone say aye. Yes. Thank you. Motion is approved. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Justin Drury with 2020 Land Surveying. in regards to Plan 2015-106F, Distillery District West, Unit 1. We'd like to ask for a one-month postponement on that. Okay. Thank you, sir. This is on page 3, Item D, Plan 2015-106F. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Move postponement of Plan 2015-106F. Still redistricting. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of Plan 2015-106F for one month. Please vote. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Members of the commission, members of the staff. My name is Mike Robbins. I would like to direct your attention to page 5, item 3, development plan 2015-30, High Point Subdivision, located at 1123 Winchester Road. I would like to request a postponement until the Planning Commission's zoning meeting on October the 22nd. Thank you. The motion is for postponement until October 22nd of DP 2015-30 Half Point Subdivision, which is on page 5. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP 2015-30 to the October 22nd meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? The motion has been made in second and fourth. Postponement DP 2015-30 until October 22nd. Please vote. That motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Robbins. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes, sir. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commission members. I'm Chris Clendenin from Murphy and Clendenin. I'm asking for a postponement. This is item one on your agenda, page one, preliminary plan for 2015-67P Copper Creek. we'd like to request a two-week postponement. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? And that would be until October 22nd? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Okay, thank you. Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement plan 2015-67P, Coffer Creek subdivision until October 22nd. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Mundy. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Staff has one item to bring to the Commission's attention. Yes, sir. On page three of your agenda, item E, Plan 2015-107F, the William Sheely Subdivision Unit 1, Block A, Lot 2, and Unit 2. This is property located at 435 West New Circle Road. We, staff has received a request for this plan to be withdrawn. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request? Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we would note we received an email about 45 minutes ago from the engineer asking for that. Asking for that? Is that what you said? Yes, sir. Asking for the withdrawal. Thank you. Okay. No one in the audience wish to speak to this. Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move approval for Plan 2015-107F, William Shelley subdivision, to be withdrawn from the process. Okay, so your motion is for withdrawal? Yes. Okay. Second by Ms. Plumlee? Okay. The motion is for withdrawal of Plan 2015-107F, William Shelley subdivision. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Seeing none, we'll ask Mr. Sally to walk us through the consent agenda with the remaining items. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm glad to report to you that most of your remaining items do appear on your consent agenda this afternoon. There are a number of plans recommended for approval by your subdivision committee that we can review at this time. The first item on your consent agenda appears on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda, Plan 2015-102P, a preliminary subdivision plan for Tuscany Unit 10. This involves property with an address of 2625 Sir Barton Way and 1970 Winchester Road. That would be a portion of that address. There are several final subdivision plans recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. First is page 2, item A, Plan 2015-103F, the Williams property, lot 1. This property is at 3400 Todd's Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item B, Plan 2015-104F, Hamburg Place, B5P and B6P area, Highway Commercial. This is Lots 10, 11, and 12, and an amended final record plat for property at 2277 War Admiral Way. On page 3, item C of your meeting agenda, we find Plan 2015-105F, a plat for Patchen Wilkes Townhomes, with an address of 2101 Patchen Lakes Lane. There is one final subdivision plan recommended for reapproval by your planning staff. That appears on page 4, item F of your meeting agenda. This is plan 2013-98F, Masterson Hills Unit 1C. This involves property with an address of 3,000 Spur Road. In addition, there are three final development plans recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 6, item B of your meeting agenda, DP 2015-38, an amended final development plan for Masterson Station Center, also known as Citation Village. This property has an address of 2601 Leestown Road. On page 7, item D, this plan is also on your consent agenda. DP 2015-90, an amended final development plan for the Marathon Oil Company, also known as Speedway Super America LLC. This property has an address of 140 Mercer Road. The final plan on your meeting agenda is on page, pardon me, on your consent agenda, I should say, is page 7, item E of your meeting agenda, DP 2015-92, an amended final development plan for the Church of the Good Shepherd. This property has an address of 533 East Main Street. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Planning Commission can consider approval of these plans as has either been recommended by your subdivision committee or by the staff, unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask that you remove one of them to allow for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Selle. Anyone in the audience wish to hear any one of these items on the consent agenda? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Your name and which one? Mr. Chairman, my name is Kevin Murphy. I'm concerned with item DP-2015-92, the Church of Good Shepherd amended development plan. Okay, very good. We'll remove that from the Kassin agenda and hear it in order of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to remove any one of the items from the Kassin agenda? If not, commission members want to remove anything. If not, I'll entertain a motion noting that the William Sheely has been withdrawn and Church of the Good Shepherd will be heard later. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the consent agenda as read, with those two exceptions, William Shealy and the Church of the Good Shepherd. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. So, first on our agenda would be on page... No, that got postponed. Sorry. First on our agenda would be on page 4, Plan 2013-122, South End Park. This is a re-approval. Since it did involve a waiver, which you have the waiver before you, we do have to hear it. Thank you. you today is plan 2013 122F South End Park Unit 1. It is a re-approval. This is... Here we go. This is the project. It's associated, of course, with the downlight extension. This is a flat, 24 lots. You can see that here is the rooting or eroding, whatever your planter is, as it comes on West High Street. The, that will call the site here with the lots, a series of lots in this location. It will be served by now. He's just speaking softer today for some reason. I thought this was working. I can't have a lot. I get accused of doing that quite often. Yeah, he wrote. And again, you're here for a re-approval. You all know that this is a complicated, involved, government-sponsored project with a lot of money involved and a lot of design issues. We've highlighted and read those sections that have already been recorded. So due to some additional issues that they continue to work on in this project, there's a couple of lots that have not yet been recorded. So they need your reapproval on the parent plat. And that's why it's before you today. There is a waiver associated with this plant, and you may recall, because it's a little bit of an unusual waiver, but typical, in fact, to this development in that they requested a waiver to the engineering certification. Because we have an engineer that prepared this plant, but these same engineers did not design or inspect the infrastructure. You all may recall that discussion. That was actually done by a State Department of Transportation engineer, since they are the primary sponsors of this project. So the engineer that prepared the plat would not sign for the infrastructure. So the certification has been changed and recorded on the previous sections, but that waiver is, of course, associated with the parent plat as well. So with that, staff is recommending approval subject to the original conditions and the waiver request. Any questions, Mr. Martin? And let me just ask you this administratively, I guess. The waiver's already been approved. If this does get re-approved, do we need to re-approve the waiver? Yes, sir, you should go ahead and just acknowledge that the waiver it needs, because they will record the rest of the plat in a section with that certification. Thank you. Is the applicant here? It is a city engineer who was told that he'd probably be okay if he couldn't make it, although I thought he was. Okay, that's fine. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Seeing none, we can move forward and entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move re-approval of Plan 2013-122F, including the re-approval of the waiver. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion then made in second and for re-approval of Plan 2013-122F with the associated waiver. Please vote. That motion passes. Thank you. Next, we move to page 5. At the top of the page, it's Denton Farms Plan 2011-8L. This is also a re-approval. We're hearing it since it's over three years old. Yes, ma'am. Yes, and as you said, Denton Farms. We're going to head out Richmond Road. Head out Richmond Road to meet the Denton Farms. This is Ellerslie. It tees into Winston Park, Weston Park. This plan was approved back in 2011, and they've come back, and they asked for originally it had five lots on this side here. Now they're coming back, and they're asking for reapproval because they had increased it by one lot from the original plan, and then this one was submitted, and they created six lots. so with that we have the typical sign-offs and as you understand this was a re-approval we had typical governmental sign-offs and some cleanup conditions that still need to be made on the plan that were approved in 2011 including exactions and correct plan title and that sort of thing. So any other questions? Any questions for Ms. Galt? Like I do. Okay. On number 15. Yes. The note. Yes, there was delete the note. Right. Yeah, because they made reference to another plat. This is a carryover note from another plat that they shouldn't have had on this one. Okay, thank you. By mistake. Any other questions? Applicant, have anything to add? Yes. Okay. You may if you'd like. Okay. Politely refusing. He gets the memo. Mr. Chairman. He's got a thumbs up. Yes, ma'am. I move re-approval of Plan 2011-8F, Denton Farm Incorporated Unit 4A Block J, Lots 26 through 30. Thank you. And Lots 31 through 35. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for re-approval of plan 2011-8L. Yes, ma'am. I have a question. I don't see anything about CAD. There's nothing shown here. I can explain that. Yes, sir. This happens to be an expansion area 2, and under the capacity assurance program, that entire expansion area is exempt from the capacity assurance program requirements just because so much of the infrastructure is in place. It's EAMP. Before I ask for a vote, I did not ask if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak on this plan. Seeing none, I'll go on and ask for a vote since the motion has been made. And seconded, didn't we receive a second? Yeah, Mr. Cravens, okay. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2011-8L Denton Farms. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Reapproval. Motion passes. Thank you. move on to page 6, item C, DP 2015-55, Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4, located 2151-2221 Georgetown Road. You do have staff, revised staff recommendations on this. On a goldenrod sheet of paper. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, members of the Commission, good afternoon. This item is in the middle of your sixth page of your agenda, DP 2015-55. This is an amended final development plan for the Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4. It's also in the past been known as Pemberton Farm and also the Burke, Hockensmith, and Maggard property. It's Unit 5 of that development. It has an address of 2151 and 2221 Georgetown Road. This plan, as you can see from your agenda, has been postponed since your July meetings. It was postponed in July, August, and September. And you will note on the agenda that today's date, 10-8-15, is the last day by which the commission can consider this plan without a request for additional time by the applicant. The photo on the overhead is a picture of the subject property. And I'll orient you to the location of these two lots. the property is at the southeast corner of citation boulevard and georgetown road this is jaggy fox drive which is the first collector immediately to the west of georgetown road and it is if one were traveling in a westerly direction and crossing georgetown you'd come to jaggy fox and then you'd go over the railroad at that location there is industrial development immediately to the south of the subject property. This property is directly across Georgetown Road from the Root and Riddle Equine Hospital, which does have an access point onto Georgetown Road at that location. Accepted from the vacant land you see on this corner is a very small agricultural urban zone parcel here that is not part of the development. There is a house and a small barn on that property. And you can see from the development plan, there is a notch, if you will, in the property that accounts for this location. The Rood and Riddle Access is situated here along Georgetown Road, and we have Jaggy Fox here. So the development plan encompasses about 35 acres, almost the entirety of this vacant track that you see in the photograph. What is proposed is an industrial building here of just over 100,000 square feet. The actual number is 101,435 feet of an industrial facility, 35-foot high building. In addition, some 143 parking spaces are proposed for the development, mostly to the north, a few in a customer service area oriented to Jaggi Fox. And then there are large areas for recycled asphalt and heavy-duty concrete proposed for presumably truck and equipment parking. The eastern third of the property is not currently proposed for development on this plan, although there is an indication of a proposed access to Georgetown Road directly across from the Equine Hospital at that location. this property was before the planning commission in december of 2012 and this is that development plan we do not have the plan number noted on here i apologize for that but the lot four of this development plan generally correlates to the plan that you're being asked to consider this afternoon the building proposed at that time was somewhat smaller than the building you're asked to be considered today. This building was 73,000 square feet in size. There were 122 parking spaces proposed with this plan. Again, areas of asphalt here, but not quite as intense a development as what the current development plan is contemplating. In addition, there was development proposed here in addition to the access to Georgetown Road, but there were a series of access easements that were shown on this development plan in 2012, one through this property and then serving the property to the north here as well. So there were two, a 60-foot access easement here and another 60-foot access easement here, a gated entry into the rear of this development. This parcel is just under 20 acres in size, so the balance then leaves an additional 15 acres where there was more speculative development proposed in 2012. The Planning Commission did approve this development plan in December of 2012, but the applicant did not certify the plan, meaning they never brought it to the staff within a year of your approval, demonstrating that they met all of the conditions placed on that approval by the Commission. So this plan has technically expired, although there is a record of your approval of that plan. You can tell from this plan the series of access easements has disappeared, and there is no more speculative development for the 15 acres fronting on Georgetown Road with the plan you're being asked to consider by the applicant. You can see on the agenda your subdivision committee has recommended postponement of this plan. Since they originally met in July, the applicant has not clarified the availability of sanitary sewer service to the amendment and has not revised their development. This property sits on a ridge, and it is at the edge of two sanitary sewer banks. And as we just talked about with the capacity assurance program, at the time of your committee meetings, one of those banks had a very low to near zero capacity in it. The other bank did have sanitary sewer capacity. So there was an issue as to which way the sewage would flow from this development as to whether or not there was capacity in the system for that sewage. To the staff's knowledge, that question has not been answered since your committee meetings in July. The staff, at this time, we want to circulate to you a number of emails that we have sent to the applicant. They are dated in order June 29th, June 30th, June 29th, July 1st, July 1st, July 1st, July 1st, July 8th, July 9th, August 12th, September 9th, and September 30th. We have been in contact with this applicant and have not been able to get answers to these questions. I'd like to circulate these to you. As a result, the staff brings you today a revised recommendation for this development plan. It is for disapproval. There are five reasons in our recommendation that's on the overhead. First, there is a question as to whether there is compliance with the Capacity Assurance Program for this proposed development. Secondly, stormwater management measures due to the Royal Springs Aquifer Protection Area have not been addressed by this amended plan. Thirdly, access to Georgetown Road are far less detailed than those shown on the currently approved, or I should say the past approved, development plan. Fourth, the proposed development plan has not clarified compliance with the existing I-1 zoning of the subject property. And fifth, under Article 21 of the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission may disapprove an amendment if it will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or would alter the essential character of the development as originally approved. Staff believes with these uncertainties and with the loss of the access that was worked out in 2012, that would be the case here. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time on this plan. Mr. Penn? Mr. Sally, the part that comes out in front of Rood and Riddle, does it still have that field dirt there? Mr. Penn, I have been by the site, but it has been several weeks. The last time I was by the site, maybe a month ago, I did notice that there was a stockpiling of dirt here. That was before the roadway opened, the entire road opened. and my understanding from what I had been told was that it was associated with the road project. I would believe it's still there. Well, at the subdivision committee, I don't know, several months ago, we saw this and the discussion was about that field dirt and it was supposed to be moved. My concern is if we take the staff recommendation, is that pile of dirt just going to sit there in front of Root and Riddle until somebody comes along and wants to develop it? That's an excellent question. I wish I knew the answer to that, Mr. Penn. I don't know that answer. That ought to be noted. I don't know what you can do about it, but just to walk away from it and let, I assume, the contractor or the state dumped it there. And I can't believe that that wasn't supposed to be used or moved or something. So I don't know what the procedure is for that, but I hate to turn this thing down, disapprove it, and the developer walks away and that dirt's just there because it's an eyesore. I was looking back to Mr. Newman just to see if he had any ideas as to what might be the future of that. No? Okay. Thank you. By chance, is Applin here? Yeah. Apparently not. I don't think so. Okay. Okay, and I brought that up during subdivision, and I can say, yes, it is still there. They have continued. I was at Root & Riddle yesterday and saw trucks coming and going from there, and there's a good 20 foot of elevation from the road off field dirt there now. It is very concerning, and I appreciate Frank's thought that, you know, I don't know the details of it. I've heard that it is temporary, but, you know, I can very much understand the reason for your recommendation of disapproval. And, you know, I think we could disapprove this without, you know, and the dirt still be there. But it would be nice to have some answers. And we think it's citation associated with just looking at citation. Or not. You know, one of the reasons for their disapproval is stormwater management due to measures due to Royal Springs aquifer protection. I would think that field dirt would have something that could impact that as well. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Martin was telling me that the urban county government staff believes that the origin of the dirt is from the project, the road project, and apparently it's under the negotiations with a state entity, probably the Transportation Cabinet. And so that's why folks here at the urban county government are just not aware of its future or what those agreements mean. Let me ask this. Is it possible to attempt to get those answers without holding up your recommendation for disapproval? I think regardless of how the commission acts on this plan, we can certainly pursue that and try and find out what we can. We can certainly ask our staff and the MPO to make contact with their folks that they work with at the Transportation Cabinet. Okay. Very good. Yes, sir? I might point out that dirt doesn't stay dirt. We have ways for noxious weeds to grow there. It's unsightly what it is. And if you take a 20-foot and you let thistles or hollyhock or whatever grow at the top of that, you're going to have a mellow of a hiss. And I just think we need to investigate if we can. I don't know what the state trumps it. Then the state needs to take care of it. I doubt they have a permit to dump it there because we were told two or three months ago that that was a temporary situation. When we saw that developed last time, that was a temporary situation, and that dirt would be moved. And it's still there. Still there. Anyone else have any questions? Yes, ma'am. I'm just wondering if through code enforcement some way, because it's a noxious area, they can pursue it. I'm not sure. These things do pop up from time to time, and there are rules about whether or not it occupies an acre or more land, where some other state regulations kick in on things like that. Just guessing this is probably real close to about an acre in size. But there are other state regulations that kick in once it reaches that level of activity. Other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I think I can entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Notwithstanding the fact that we can't do anything about the dirt, I'd like to, in consideration of DP 2015-55 Bluegrass Park, Lot 4, Pendleton Farm, and Burke, Harkin Smith, and Maggett Property, Unit 5, recommend that we support the staff's recommendation for disapproval for the reasons provided by staff. Thank you. The motion's been made and seconded to approve staff recommendations for disapproval. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. And Mr. Sally, yes, if someone can try and come up with some answers, it would be greatly appreciated. If we finish early today, Mr. Chairman, I'll send that email before the end of the day. Thank you. I think we can move on to page 7. at the bottom of the page, not middle of the page, I'm sorry, it's DP 2015-92, Church of the Good Shepherd, amended. It's at 533 East Main Street. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, this is, in fact, DP 2015-92, Church of the Good Shepherd. Property is located at 533 East Main Street here. We have Bell Court, Sarah Avenue, and just out of the picture, you have the downtown area. The purpose of this amendment is to move a previously approved columbarium garden from, I believe, its original location here to over to this side of the property now. The subdivision committee has recommended it for approval based on the conditions you see on your agenda. The first seven being your typical sign-offs, including water qualities, sign-off for the capacity assurance program. That reason being is there's an additional plan to, or excuse me, I'm sorry, a future building to be placed in this site as well. The rest of them are just some cleanup items. Number eight being the addition of record plan information. nine they identify the exact locations of the street cross sections we do have the street cross sections just not where they were located at we need to label detention basin located along main street label existing utility easements correct note number six which makes to make reference to chapter 16 of the code ordinances this is originally done it had article 21 on I believe. Just correct a small spelling error in the owner's certification. We need to dimension the Columbarian Garden. Delete note number 13, which I believe is in reference to a billing permit. And, of course, it was a late file, so review by your technical committee. Okay. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to any questions or comments. Any questions? One quick question. The colobarium, is that a standalone? Is it attached to the building? You said garden, so I'm presuming it's open. There are walkways. Yes, sir. It will have a, I believe it's a four-foot-high metal fence here. It will be open here and here and have pavers or stepping stones instead of a concrete path going through it. It will be detached from the structure itself. Okay. I'm meaning this wall. Any sort of walkways going to it? As what was submitted, no, but it references stepping stones. Stepping stones, okay. And not an actual. Okay. Okay. Very good. Is applicant here? Yes. Anything to add, sir? Come forward? No? Yes? Maybe? No, you're good? Okay. Okay, very good. Reserve comments for later if needed. So, Mr. Murphy? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm a little bit unprepared for today because even though this is a zoning development plan that tried to be amended from 20, I guess 2000 is when it was approved, and as such, there's no notice sent out for this. So it was just by happenstance that this came to my attention. So I'm not really prepared to make a full argument, but I would like from my notes to give you a little bit of the history on this very briefly and then mention what my concerns are about it, if that would be acceptable. Okay, sure. Okay, so first of all, as previously mentioned, 2000, a zoning development plan is part of a zone change for the property with the columbarium located in the middle of the proposed addition and existing church. In September of 2014, Good Shepherd Church appeared before the Board of Architectural Review for approval for a columbarium. And as you know, and I found out the hard way, the Board of Architectural Review does not consider any use issues, but rather only aesthetic issues. So they did grant approval for this in September of 2014. In July, Good Shepherd advertised in their newsletter that they were having a groundbreaking for this in August. And then subsequently in September, work began with demolition of the existing trees and shrubs. And no permits had been issued for that. And no Board of Adjustment approval had been sought. And it's my understanding that this is a conditional use and that it would require an additional Board of Adjustment appeal. And I've been told, but I haven't checked it out myself, that they have applied for a Board of Adjustment. Well, I was told by the building inspector. Go ahead. We'll get that answer. I was told that they had done that. So as the work progressed, I did check with my council person, Jake Gibbs, who lives in our neighborhood as well, and he had no knowledge of it. He had seen the construction begin and the fence that blocked off almost half of the street, and he didn't know what was going on, so he agreed to investigate. And at that point, he found, too, that there were no permits issued for anything. The subsequent day, I did receive an email from the building inspector's office that they had issued a fence permit for the property and that they were requiring them to go to the Board of Adjustment for approval. And, of course, that would be the first actual written notice that would go out to the 400 or 500-foot radius to neighbors to inform them of what was going on with the property. As of today, the fence is out of the ground, basically. The footings are in. The block is laid. It's well on the way. And my concern is, because of no notice, or written notice anyway, of this meeting for an approval of a zoning development plan from 15 years ago, and no notice has been sent out for the Board of Adjustment yet, if indeed they have even filed, My concern is that, well, number one, would this be considered a de facto approval of a conditional use that has not been approved yet? And that's my number one concern. My request would be, of course, that you disapprove the plan. But secondly, I think that a more reasonable request would be that it be postponed since, indeed, they don't have the appropriate permits yet. they don't have the appropriate approval from the Board of Adjustment. And I think by doing that, your board would show a good faith effort in the processes and procedures that are in place in the urban county government to assure protection of the rights of the citizens of the community. And that's my biggest concern here. So I would be happy to entertain any questions or would also like to reserve comments for later as well. Okay. Thank you, sir. any questions for mr. Murphy yes are you against this project going I mean are you against what they're doing I'm not against the idea of a columbarium I understand that they're a great service to the church community I understand too that they're a tremendous fundraiser my concern is the relocation. Take the microphone with you, sir. It should be on. Hello? Yes. My recollection is, and I don't have a copy of this development plan, but it was originally located between the existing church and the proposed phase two, two-story, multi-purpose building that they were attempting to build back in 2000. And my concern is that that was a very central location. It was removed from a front yard, even though it was exposed to a front yard. But relocating and enlarging that columbarium brings it out to a front yard area in Bell Court. and the spillover that could occur into the street and the processes and ceremonies, rituals, whatever are involved with the columbarium, I think could become a safety issue and a concern to the neighborhood. So I'm not against the columbarium. I'm against the relocation of the columbarium. Okay. Thank you. Staff, want to respond? You may get the applicant up there yet. clarify a couple of things and I'm not up here to speak on behalf of the church. They can explain any actions permitting anything that they may need to address on their behalf. But I want to make something clear to the planning commission. This is a final development plan. It has expired which is one reason it's back before your day to get re-approved. There is no notice requirement on a final development plan. So no notice went out. It was approved by the Board of Adjustment. And what you see on your screen are the conditions that were recorded on the land use certificate per the approval of the Board of Adjustment. And if you look at number six, it states that the action of the board be noted on the final development plan for the subject property submitted for planning commission approval. You all have the authority to amend this plan and approve this plan. It does not need to return to the Board of Adjustment, and we wanted you to know that. And again, notification is not required on a final development plan. With that, again, I just wanted to make that clear to help you all make a decision. The church can speak for themselves as to the other issues. Okay. Okay, so, Tom, real quick, just to clarify, this is because the development plan expired, and it sounds like now they're asking for the relocation of the columbary. They are. They are. And by amending it, it allows you to reapprove it. And the Board of Adjustment did already give grant approval? They did, yes. All right. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Yes. If I could further expand on that. In speaking with Mr. Emmons, who has, for the last few years, handled most of the duties for applications to the Board of Adjustment, he explained, and as you're seeing on the overhead, that the Board did approve the columbarium in 2000. If you look at the first condition on their approval, it is that the property be developed according to the submitted application and site plan or as amended by the Urban County Planning Commission. And that is the phrase at the end of that first condition is the reason why there is not now an application for another conditional use permit for this relocation. Strictly a development plan issue, as Mr. Murphy has described to you, as to whether or not the commission authorizes that re-approval. So there will not be, in our anticipation, a new conditional use permit for this. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission at this point? Mike. Yes, sir. I guess, Tom, I have a question for you, and then I think I'd like to hear from the applicant. But the fact that they did not get a permit, is that germane to this conversation? I beg your pardon. If they didn't get the correct permitting to do what they've done already, is that germane to this conversation? Permits are required, but plans do expire, and not everyone is as sophisticated about that sort of thing. And, again, I don't want to speak for them or why they took the actions that they did, but they did come to us, and we did discuss the situation with them. And we said, well, you need to have your plan re-approved so you may as well amend the location to where you want it, the columbarium. columbarium. And, you know, it's what they've done. They filed this plan to amend it and, in essence, get it re-approved as well. Phase two's not been built, and by getting it re-approved, they are still allowed to have phase two. Other questions? No. Maybe the applicant, yes. I thought you might want to come up and talk. Still? Oh, there you Hi, I'm Mark Arnold. I'm a landscape architect. I've been working with the church. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. We did go back last fall and go before the Board of Architectural Review, and we got a certificate of appropriateness. Now, at the time, the church had no intention of building a Phase II building, but unfortunately, when they applied in 2000 for the development plan, the columbarium was associated with that building. Subsequent to 2000, the year 2000, they have a need for a columbarium. Now, to help kind of explain what a columbarium is, it's a garden wall and a fence. It is within their right to build a small garden wall in their side yard as long as it is appropriate within the Board of Adjustment. So once we went and met with the Planning Commission and we talked through the procedure, It appeared to us that the best procedure was for us to go ahead and apply for a fence and wall permit, begin the construction of the garden, the wall, the pavers, and the landscaping, and then we have a lag time of several months before the actual insertion of a metal niche would go into the wall. So that's sort of how the process has gone through, and that's why we're here today. But we do have a permit for fence and garden wall. We have the permit required to do the construction that we have done. We do need to go through this and get your approval to locate a columbarium within that wall. We understand that, and we're certainly prepared to go through that process as well. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn. What about the concern of the services for the columbarium coming out on Bell Court? will that all be able to be done on your property inside on the church property inside or when it when they do have burials there will bell court be affected the space that we're we're capturing and i have a full set of plans with renderings if you're interested in looking at them but the space that we're actually enclosing within the garden element is not appropriate for a large group of people the service will always be held within the church sanctuary they do already come out into the lawn to do, you know, St. Francis services and services within the lawn. But on a regular basis, we're not, this is not a space that will contain that many people. It is very small, it's very intimate, and it's very sort of an English garden style. You don't see Bellcourt being impacted the street itself? Bellcourt will not be impacted at all. That's what I wanted to get back. in any way, any further than it already is impacted by all the other functions in the Belcourt area. Any other questions? Mr. Arnold, if you could, just to clarify, the original proposed location of the columbarium? You might want to take the microphone with you. Microphone. Microphone. the original location for the columbarium was attached to and a part of the phase two development we wouldn't be here today if the word columbarium hadn't appeared on that plan and been attached to that project it was an outside element but we wouldn't be here they were the only reason we are coming back to amended is because it was attached to that second building they're not prepared to build this in any time in the near future, and it may be many, many years before this construction occurs, but they really had the need to go ahead with a columbarium. The columbarium at this edge of the project, or at this edge of the church, just would not have been appropriate. It would have been sort of out on the edge of the church. It would have been very hard to kind of keep some security and control, and frankly, it just wouldn't look right. So we went to the Board of Architectural Review with our concepts and said, this is where we're proposing it and we got approval. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Other questions from Mr. Arnold? Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Mr. Murphy, any other comments? Well, I would like to make one or two comments that I seem to have been getting a lot of conflicting information from different agencies within the government and while I do see the document that is on the screen before us, I'm still a little bit confused about how what originally was a zoning development plan. Am I correct? There was a plan submitted in 2000 for a zone change for this property, and that was what brought it before the Planning Commission in the first place. I believe historically that's correct because, as you all probably know, churches are conditional uses in, I think, every zone in Fayette County. And my concern is that this seems like, pardon my expression, a backdoor way of doing what any other conditional use would be required to do, which is go to the Board of Adjustment, send out the area notification letters to the surrounding property owners, and amending amending their request through the board that is able to grant conditional uses or changes to conditional uses, which my understanding is you guys can't do that. And that is de facto what's happening here. And that is of concern to me. I'm very unclear as to why there is no requirement for a Board of Adjustment appeal, which is what I'm hearing today for the first time. And if somebody could address that a little more clearly, I would be greatly appreciative. One, and I can let Mr. Sally or legal chime in. One, this has been to the Board of Adjustment and was granted approval under that first condition. That's correct. Says that we, the commission, may amend this if necessary. That's correct. So. Okay. That's under that first condition right there. So the use has been approved, and then the Planning Commission does have the ability to change its location on the site through that first condition. Okay. I was unaware of that. Okay. But still, no notice is sent out. That's my concern. At this point, all I can say is that that isn't required in this situation. Tracy, can you add anything? I can't really add anything other than what's already been said, but under the ordinance and the statute, there's not a notice provision, so that's why there isn't one. Okay. All right. Then I would humbly request, number one, a disapproval, or number two, a relocation of the columbarium to its original location. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Arnold? You said you had details, plans? Why don't you put those up real quick? Thank you. So when I began working with the church, they had informed us that the original idea for the columbarium was to attach it to the future building, and it would become a part of the future building, potentially an exterior wall or a court wall. Since there was no building, we began to look for some other locations. We sort of zeroed in on this edge of Bell Court with the main sanctuary and nave in this location. Then they have an office and sort of family life building that sits back and comes a little closer to Belcourt. So the existing building sort of turns an L here. One of the first things, the moves that we made was to make certain that we did not want the wall of the garden area to be beyond the wall of the existing building, maintaining as much of that green space as we possibly could as we look down Belcourt. so we've essentially pulled this wall back and aligned it with the building that's already there so we're not encroaching on any building setbacks and we're actually leaving quite a bit of green space between the back of the wall and the edge of the road. Then the second thing that we really felt strong about was pulling it back and aligning it behind the bell tower so it would not encroach in front of the corner bell tower and therefore encroach in the visual or the view shed of Main Street. So it's very, very carefully located as a small cloister garden tucked in adjacent to the nave in as close to the edge of the existing building as possible. We're putting in stone walls. We gapped the wall so it would not be completely visually obtrusive. We put windows in the wall from Main Street. We put windows or gaps and wrought iron fencing in from Belcourt, and we kept it open back towards the church. That gives a lot of visibility through it. It gave us a lot of security. And also, I felt like it sort of was a better neighbor approach. So this was the concept. And, of course, the interior is landscaped. There's a four-foot wide walk. That is the largest. The walk that runs through, it's in bluestone pavement, and it comes, I think, about six feet by six feet square right here at the center. so it's not a large gathering area. It's very flanked by two benches and a small fountain. The columbarium niche is actually inserted in four places into an existing wall. So it will come in, and they would be bronze. They would not face out towards Belcourt. They only face inward towards the garden itself. So there's sort of a general visualization of what it would look like kind of from above, looking down into the garden, and then once you're standing in the garden, and this visualization here is sort of what it looks like from inside outward. So the planning was really careful not to be obtrusive to the neighborhood. We wanted to come to the Board of Architectural Review and get full approval, which we did. They made a few comments. We adjusted those comments, lowered our fence height, made sure that it would fit, and then we proceeded on with the project. That's where we stand today. there's landscaping that goes along with it we're replacing trees that were removed with four new large trees that go into the center of the project can't really flip this set of drawings but there are four large trees here there's landscaping along the edge of the the edge of the walls on both sides again facing out towards Belcourt okay thank you Mr. Arnold Mr. Murphy anything to add after seeing that? Just a comment. Thanks. Mr. Arnold's a landscape architect, and I appreciate that. I'm a licensed architect in the state of Kentucky, and I have a little bit of trouble with his reasoning. I still don't understand how putting the columbarium on the street makes it more private than putting it in the original location where it has access to the open space on the site that is currently existing as well as access and orientation possibilities to the interior courtyard that already exists on the building. Now, I'm not prepared for a full-blown hearing on this because, as I said, up until about 10 minutes ago, I was under the impression there was going to be a public hearing at the Board of Adjustment. But I will say that in the last several years, there has been a propensity of Good Shepherd Church to use Bell Court for their ceremonies and rituals. And that has been problematic. I can list at least two or three times in the past year where that has happened with regard to just last Sunday, closing the street for the blessing of the hounds, which is great, but why couldn't they do that on their own property? Previously in the year, during the Palm Sunday service, the rector stood on the side yard porch and the congregation filled up Bell Court without a permit to shut the street to process down around the corner and into the church. I do not understand why when they have this interior your court space with access into the church, they want to use Bell Court, which is number one, dangerous, and number two, an inconvenience to the neighborhood. If you'll look in their past issues of their newsletter, there are all sorts of bicycle activities and things that they have had in the street. This has all come about in the last year or two, and seeing now that they're wanting to move this columbarium over to the street side tells me something. And I think it means intense use of that corner and out into the street as they've done with their other ceremonies and rituals over the last year or two. I'm concerned about that. And if you were to approve that, I certainly would hope there would be some conditions placed on that to that concern. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Questions from the commission for either party? Yes, David Dirk? I'm sorry, my computer screen's not working. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, my computer screen's not working, so you just have to go back to school and raise your hand to speak. Been some confusing discussion here, at least for me. My question, I guess, is directed to staff and attorney. Is the church in compliance with all ordinances and regulations? Are they in violation of anything with this request? As far as we know from the zoning ordinance, I don't think they are in violation of anything. Thank you. That's all I need. Anyone else? Okay, so I'll take the flip side of the question. And what are they allowed to do under current ordinance on Belcourt? And what are they restricted from doing? Do you mean on their property or on the street itself? I don't think that the conditional use permit or the development plan goes to what they do or don't do on the street. It goes to their property. Okay, so who could answer what they're allowed to do in the street adjacent to their property? I may be able to help a little bit on that, I hope. If planning was asked to sign off on a permit, we would review to see if they were complying with their approved development plan, and they would be allowed to do whatever that development plan allowed. Now, again, I would point out that the area, the columbarium, is here near Main Street. now and they want to move it here, I mean, they're not adding access or anything like that. If this plan had been current, this would have been a minor amendment. We would not have been before the Planning Commission. Staff would have approved what is a movement of already approved space, which falls under a minor amendment. Now, had we felt there was an impact on the street or an impact for safety or something like that, we ask other governmental entities to sign off on those minor amendments. But we don't see that impact here. Okay. So from our perspective here and what we're supposed to be deciding on, we really don't have anything to say about what they do on Belcourt Street. Well, I mean, they're not allowed to infringe on public right away any more than anyone else is. I mean, that's... Tom, let me phrase... I might add, too, I know there's been... The final development plan on this property is approved. It doesn't make any reference to anything but existing zoning. And I believe, and I wasn't here in 2000, so I can't speak to exactly the why and what for, but it appears that there's more than one principal structure on the property, which would explain a final development plan. It does reference both the Board of Adjustment and the BOAR approvals. Mike. Yes, sir. Mr. Finn. Hey, Tom, while you're there. Oh, Mr. Martin. I'm sorry. Yes. Is it appropriate on a final development plan to condition, a minor development plan, to condition the use of the street? We would, not the use of the street. No, sir. If there was access being asked for, something like that, some change in the access, and we would ask traffic and possibly even fire to sign off on that sort of thing. Sure. But my point is this. the neighbor asked could we condition it for an approval. And my question to you is if we approve this thing, I don't think we can condition that it not be anything be done on bail court because that's a whole different issue. I believe you're correct. Legal's nodding her head. It's public right away. Right. You all's jurisdiction is over this development plan. Anything? Yes, Mr. Cravens. I think the only thing Mr. Murphy's saying, if that were on the other side of the building, then they wouldn't be apt to roll out in the street as much. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Well, this is almost like a footnote, but it seems like what I heard Mr. Murphy say, that there are other activities and events which have, in effect, spilled over into Belcourt. And I guess the question I had is, could the neighborhood get together and go talk to the rector and explain, sit down and have just a discussion about the impact of what their activities are rather than, because I don't see us doing too much about it. Mr. Wilson, I think that would be a good idea. It would be a better idea. Otherwise, I think it's a code enforcement issue as far as what goes on out in the street, what floods out. But let me see if there's any other questions or comments first. Anyone else have anything to say? If not, yeah, we'll close this part here and open it up for a motion. Yeah. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I think everybody's done, got the right permits and right procedures and everything. So I'm going to move, and since this was on the consent agenda, I'm going to move approval of DP 2015-92. Motion's been made and seconded. With the 16 conditions. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP 2015-92. The Church of the Good Shepherd amended with the 16 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Good luck. I'd say, yeah, get your neighbors and go work with your neighbor across the street. Down at the bottom, page 7, Blackford Property, DP 2011-41. We'll need to keep that. Thank you. bonds and credits performance bonds thank you for that motion motion has been made for approval of the release and call of bonds memo dated October 8 2015 those before you please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes now that mr. Sally whenever you're ready thank you mr. chairman this next item appears on the bottom of page 7 and then continues on to page 8 of your meeting agenda. This is DP 2011-41 Blackford property, Phase 1, Unit 5, and Phase 3 amended. This is for property located on Blackford Parkway. We have provided to you a handout from the applicant that we received yesterday that helps explain the postponement recommendation from your subdivision Committee for this plan. The subject property is located at the terminus of Blackford Parkway and really all along its northern bounds. A property that we looked at a couple of months ago for a zone change is just to the south of this location on the Clark property. This is the current terminus of Blackford Parkway at this location. Of course, it extends all the way off this plan further to the east back to Manowar Boulevard. Residential housing is under development in this location, which is immediately adjacent to the Greenbrier Golf Course at this location. This is an amended preliminary subdivision plan that sets out a street and lotting pattern for the remainder of the development, including open space areas along Walnut Grove Lane with the requisite 200-foot building line that the expansion area zoning ordinances require from that street. You'll see that there are small lot development in this area, larger lots proposed in this area closer to Greenbrier and in this area. We have mostly EAR1 zoning for the bulk of the property, although the area highlighted in orange is zoned EAR2. From a practical standpoint on the ground, once these lots are developed, it will be very difficult to tell which lots are zoned which because the lot sizes are integrated between them, and these zones have no minimum lot size requirements. As your agenda states, this plan was approved by the commission initially in 2011. The plan was certified in 2011, in October, almost exactly four years ago to the day. And last year, it was granted an extension of that approval. Under your land subdivision regulations, the preliminary subdivision plan portion of this plan allows the developer to submit plans to the Division of Engineering for three years. And so in 2014, at the end of that time, they asked for an extension to allow additional time to submit those plans. The development plan portion is good for five years. And so that has not expired, obviously. Now, a year later, they are up against another timeline where they can no longer submit plans to the Division of Engineering for this development. So they're asking for yet another approval for an extension, one-year extension, by the Planning Commission. Under your subregs, it is required that for you to do that, you have to find that there has been progress and activity that's happened in this subdivision over the last year. At last week's subdivision committee, there was talk of what had been done but no real documentation, and what we've handed out to you is the documentation that we received yesterday. You can see that several areas of this development has had progress, and as a matter of fact, just earlier this week on Monday, we did receive final plats filed for the center portion of the property, which indicates that sewers, streets, and other improvements have been put in. The staff can say that the requirement of the subregs has been met for this, and as such, the staff is now recommending approval of a one-year extension for this plan. I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time. Questions? Nope. Thank you. Thank you. Very good job. Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners, we agree with the bill and request approval. Thank you, sir. Any questions, Mr. Kaley? I can't resist. Can't let him get away. Okay. When we had this subdivision before the subdivision committee and we asked this question, And our recommendation would have been different had we seen this. And so my question to you is what happened in the time frame of the last week that you just hadn't put this together? We had never been asked for one of those before. So we went back. We actually gave them the entire file. It's about that thick. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Cayley. I presume there's no one left in the audience that wants to speak on this. So if there's no other questions, I'll just move and ask for a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP-2011-41 to Blackford Property, Phase 1, Unit 5, and Phase 3, with the appropriate recommendations by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval or re-approval of DP 2011-41 Blackford property, Phase 1. The issue was, was this just for one year? This was a one-year extension? I'm sorry, was this a one-year extension? That is all that's authorized by the subdivision regulations for the commission to do. staff may propose a change to that, but that would take a text amendment. Okay. So, Ms. Richardson, was that your motion for a one-year extension? Absolutely. And the second? The second confirms. So, once again, time to vote for the approval of one-year extension DP 2011-41. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Performance bonds letter of credit has been taken care of. Any commission items? I think our new sheriff, I'm sorry, new planning director wants to say something. Temporary planning director, Mr. Chair. Remind you all that according to the official meeting and filing schedule, you do not have a meeting scheduled for next week. The next time we'll be in here is two weeks from today for the zoning meeting on October 22nd. And we do have a Planning Commission work session scheduled for Thursday, October 29th, and we'll have a full agenda for that meeting as well. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir. Can we adjourn? Yeah. So at this point in time, staff items, any other staff items? I have one, Mr. Owens. Yes, ma'am. You all each got something that I handed you before you came in. It is an appeal of your decision on the Clinton Road setback. It's been filed in Fat Circuit Court. So the Law Department will be answering that on behalf of the Planning Commission. But since they issued a summons to each one of you, I wanted you to know about it. But we'll be taking care of it. Thank you. Okay, very good. Any other staff items? Audience items? I don't presume so. So, yes, sir? You're waving? Yes. You will find one in there from Chuck Saylor, who's formerly with you. They have a permit for that. So does that mean, is it a temporary fill? Okay. All right. Very good. Any other items? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Do we have a second motion? Have we made a second at all? Those in favor for adjournment? I don't know if I even made that. For adjournment, please say aye. Any opposed? Meeting's adjourned.