And it just progressed, you know, because it made me get up, it made me feel better, and just it gave me some kind of freeing, I guess, made me feel better about myself. I've never, I've actually never snorted heroin in my life. I went straight to shooting it. I just had a friend who taught me how to shoot up and it was, I don't know, it really grabbed a hold of me the first time. But I began using OxyContin and I noticed the price of OxyContin was skyrocketing and I was able to find heroin which was cheaper and much stronger than OxyContin. So to me it made a heck of a lot of sense when I was in the addiction and through the madness. That's normality. And when I didn't have it, I felt like I was in another world. I couldn't sit still. And that's what leveled me out. And of course, your first high is wonderful. After that, it's just using to be normal. If you don't have it, you're sick. You can't function without it. And you'll do anything to get it. At first, you do it because you like it, and then and you do it because you have to. You know, your body won't have it any other way, and your mind is even worse. I had a two-year-old the first time. My little girl was two. and uh... so social services stepped in and took her gave her to my parents uh... i was married and uh... that ended the relationship we lost our home went to jail at that point uh... to support my habit breaking the law. I had probably about a $300 a day habit at that point. And obviously you can't work enough to support that, so you have to do other things. So it just unraveled very quickly for me. I was about 88 days sober in June and relapsed, And then that's when I started shooting heroin. I was living in Cincinnati and stole from my girlfriend. She kicked me out of our apartment and ended up checking into a Salvation Army because my family couldn't continue to pay for these, you know, expensive rehabs. And I got kicked out of the program and ended up walking the streets of Dayton. And literally, I mean, it sounds like a Red Hot Chili Peppers song, but I was literally under a bridge. And, you know, I'm able to laugh about it now and to try to bring some levity to it, but the reality is that I was miserable and that I really wanted to kill myself because I didn't see a way out. And then I think, well, what the hell's the matter with me that I am hurting my family and causing all this pain and relationships, getting arrested, getting kicked out of school, kicked out of rehab, halfway house. I actually ended up under a bridge and shooting up in abandoned houses. And I say, what's wrong with me that I continue to do this? And people are telling me that I'm choosing it. It just didn't add up in my head. And it causes just an immense amount of self-loathing because I'd grown up a person with sports and with school. All I had to do was put my mind to it and work harder, and I could overcome it. And this thing just whooped me. It really did. I just was a different person, hollow-eyed. I'd always have blood on my shirt or on my socks because eventually the veins in your arm go out and then you go to your legs and your ankles. And so it was one big lie, but the easiest way for me was just not to have any communication with anyone. And that's what I did. Kind of like Bin Laden hiding up in the mountains. That was me. 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 age, your race, your socioeconomic status. It does not discriminate. It 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 alcoholics don't have that. 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. A lot of them don't even realize from what my research has been that there is even a way out. Nothing bad ever happened. We've had such a good life. We had a boy and a girl and then we were fortunate enough to adopt a child. We've been so blessed by all three of our kids. I was able to stay home. I got to read to my kids. Just have smart kids, easy kids. I think we've had it pretty easy. Yeah, yeah, we've been very fortunate. Andrew was the baby of the four of us. I have three sisters, or two sisters. I'm the third. And then he was the baby. So he was just your typical little boy, energetic. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will call this meeting to order. It is November 12, 2015. First on the agenda would be approval of minutes from September 10, 2015 and October 8, 2015. Those minutes were distributed to commission members by email. I have not heard of any changes. If they are any, let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval of those minutes. Yes? Mr. Chairman, move approval of minutes September 10th and October 8th, 2015. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made in a second for the approval of those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Kevin Phillips with Indus Engineering. and today I'm here helping out Roger Ladenberger to postpone, I guess indefinitely, that's on page two, final subdivision plan, patch and place subdivision, formerly known as Dallas Plaza Unit 1 Conrad Chevrolet. I'm going to ask for an indefinite postponement on the final record plat and then a one-week postponement to the zoning hearing, hopefully. for the plan on page one, which is plan 2015-118P, also patch in place subdivision, formerly known as Dallas Plaza, unit one. Going through some little bit of plan change, and we'd like for traffic engineering to be able to digest that between now and next week, hopefully. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to either of these postponements? Commission members? If not, let's take the one on page 1 under 1A, Plan 2015-118P first. Mr. Brewer? Mr. Chair, I move for postponement for one week for Plan 2015-118P. I think you do have a second. Second by Ms. Plumlee. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. and then on page two it's plan 2015-119L postpone indefinite thank you Ms. Plumlee yes seconded we'll let Granicus catch up with us and vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you thank you very much thank you mr. Phillips others yes sir good afternoon mr. chairman I'm here today on behalf of urban 221 LLC this is page 9 item g of your agenda we've been having very productive conversations with staff would like to continue those and would request a one week postponement of this plan. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2015-111 for one week. One week. One week. Yeah, and that's November 12, 2015. Second of Mr. Smith, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Other requests for postponements and withdrawals? Mr. Cayley. Hello. I'd like to request a postponement. I'm sorry, page 3, item E, plan 2015-122F, local enterprises. Request a one-month postponement to the December 10th meeting. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. That's until the December 10th, 2015 meeting. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move postponement of Plan 2015-122F, Local Enterprises, for one week until December, what did you say? 10th. Yes. Okay. Motion has been made by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. other requests for postponements withdrawals. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, staff would like to bring a couple of items to your attention. The first item is on page 2 of your agenda. It is item A under final subdivision plans. Plan 2015-106F, Distillery District West Unit 1. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chairman, move postponement for one month. Plan 2015-106F Distillery District West. That would be December 10th. Thank you. And that was seconded by Ms. Mundy. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Others? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The second item we'd like to direct the commission's attention to is on page 8 of your agenda. This is DP 2015-99 Willow Oak Shopping Center, also known as the Mill Pond Center, amended. This is property located at 3560 Boston Road. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Not Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for postponement for one month for DP 2015-99 Willow Shopping Center. Thank you. That was seconded by Ms. Mundy. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Yes, sir. There is one other item, Mr. Chairman, that the staff would like to bring to your attention. That is on page four of your agenda. That is at the bottom of the page, item I. It is plan 2015-126F, Eastern State Hospital, Lot 7, LFUCG, Lexington Fayette Board of Health, and Lexmark International, Lot 1 amended. This is property located at 341 and 361 West Loudoun Avenue. we have received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement thank you sir anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement commission members if not I'll entertain a motion miss Richardson yes I move one month postponement to December 10th for plan 2015-126F Eastern State Hospital. Thank you and that was seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Other requests for postponements? Withdrawals? If not, thank you. At this time we'll move to the Kassin agenda. It's on a manila sheet of paper. I'll ask Mr. Saleed to take us through that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Good afternoon. You do have a very lengthy agenda this afternoon, but you also have a lengthy consent agenda. I'm pleased to report. There are several final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee, and these are the first items appearing on your consent agenda. The first is on page two, item C of your meeting agenda, plan 2015-120F, the Blackford property, Phase 3, Unit 1K. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, Plan Page 3, Item D, Plan 2015-121F, the Blackford property, Phase 3, Unit 1L. Both of these plans involve property with an address of 2503 Cornelius Trace and 321 Bay Springs Park. On Page 4, item G. This plan is on your consent agenda, plan 2015-124F, the Sebastian property unit 2. This is a plat for property at 2826 Trailwood Lane. On page 5, item J of your meeting agenda, this plan also is on the consent agenda, plan 2015-127F, Evans Mill Farm subdivision. This is for property at 2311 Evans Mill Road. Mr. Chairman, I would note this plan requires an affidavit be submitted about a signed posting required for that plat. To my knowledge that has not been provided to the staff yet so it is not in the next minute or so we may have to pull that plan from your consent agenda. On page five item L this plan is on the consent agenda plan 2015-133F Deerfield Shopping Center also known as Hampton Inn and Greer Nick Road LLC property. This is an amended final record plat for property at 1949 and 1953 Nicholasville Road. On page 6, item M of your meeting agenda, we find Plan 2015-134F, 4th Properties LLC, for property at 1119 East New Circle Road. There is one final subdivision plat that is recommended for reapproval by your staff. That item is the next one on your agenda on page 6, item N, Plan 2014-73F, Willhite Park, Unit 1B, Section 1. This is an amended final record plan for property at 3500 Arbor Drive. There are several development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee, also on the consent agenda. The first is on page 7, item B of your meeting agenda, DP 2015-96, an amended final development plan for Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 5. This property has an address of 1730 Alley Sheba Way. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 7, item C, is also on your consent agenda, DP 2015-97, an amended final development plan for Fritz Farm, LLC, and DNK Development Group. This is for property with an address of 4210 Nicholasville Road. The next item on your meeting agenda, page 8, item D, we find DP 2015-98, an amended final development plan for the Fritz Farm, also known as Summit Lexington. This is for property at 4100 Nicholasville Road. On page 9, item F, this plan is on your consent agenda. DP 2015-101, Lakeview Estates Unit 2B, Block J, Lot 7, and Block K, Lot 3. Also, for Unit 2E, Block K, Lot 2, an amended final development plan for property with an address of 475-503-517 and 519 Lake Tower Drive. On page 9, item H, this plan is on your consent agenda, DP 2015-112, National Station, LLC, formerly known as Beachland Subdivision, Belldale Edition, and East End Edition. This plan involves property at 949 National Avenue, also having addresses of 334, 340, 342, and 346 Richmond Avenue. There is one other plan on your consent agenda. This is a development plan recommended for reapproval by your staff. It's on page 10, item I of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-111, a final development plan for Bluegrass Business Park Lot 4, also known as Pemberton Farm and Burke, Hawkinsmith and Maggard Unit 5. This property has addresses of 2151 and 2221 Georgetown Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time, you can consider approving these plans as has been recommended either by your subdivision committee or by the staff. I would say with the exception of the plan on page 5, item J, requiring the affidavit. And that's plan 2015-127F, Evans Mill Farm subdivision. We do not have that required affidavit. Other plans can be removed from your agenda if desired by the commission, by a member of the audience today. or by a petitioner if further discussion is desired by any of those parties. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Selle. Anyone in the audience wish to pull and have any one of these items heard, commission members? Okay, let me ask one other thing. Anyone present for the Evans Mill Farm subdivision plan? If not, we'll definitely have to remove that from the consent agenda. Otherwise, we can entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read with the exception of Evans Mill Farm subdivision. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move approval of the consent agenda, removing Plan 2015-127F. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded by Joseph Smith for the approval of the consent agenda with the one exception. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. We'll take the remaining items in order that is shown on the agenda. and with that we will start on page three at the bottom of the page item l plan 2015 dash 123 f coventry lots five and six you do have a waiver that is before you're on this as well waiver request Good afternoon, Mr. Martin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The first item on your agenda is at the bottom of page 3, item F, Plan 2015-123F. This is Coventry, lots 5 and 6, and also known as Belmont Farm amended. This is a final record plat that you have actually approved in a previous action. It has been brought back to you today for a waiver request. Am I on? Can you hear me? Yeah, there we go. All right, thank you. The property in question is located on the north end of town. Down here is Citation Boulevard. Georgetown Road would be in this direction. Coldstream Research Park is here. This is Remington Way at this location, and it's extending up through here. This is the property, the lot in question on the plat, where Simitoma is located. You all may recall that development plan and the large development in that location. And this is the P1 area of the property. Here is a condominium development. Here is a connection that will eventually go to Huntley Place, which is located over here close to Georgetown Road. And you may recall, we have a school site in that location. So the plan you can see on your agenda has been, interesting enough, recommended for approval under those conditions that you see on your agenda. Those very standard conditions on a plat, they were the conditions that were imposed on the plat for its previous approval. If you could turn to page four, at the top of your agenda, you will see that the key to this request is the waiver request to Article 6-8 and Exhibit 6-3 of the land subdivision regulations. You have received a waiver request. You've also received a couple of handouts. One is a colored map which demonstrates the zoning in this area of our community. and the second one is the preliminary subdivision plan that was handed out to you to demonstrate the length of the cul-de-sac that was approved to serve this development, including the Sumitoma property as well. Staff has reviewed this request for a waiver. It is a waiver to specifically remove the sidewalk from the west side of Remington Way, from this intersection at Gatton, up on the west side. And when you get up into here, and if you continue along this insert, there's a greenway in here. And you can see that on the preliminary plan, which is why staff included that with you. If you look at the preliminary plan, you will see how the cul-de-sac, again, curls up and turns and terminates to serve the lots to the north of the Sumitoma lot, which is lot number five. So the sidewalk, if the waiver was amended, would be removed from the entire western portion of that street and the cul-de-sac. you can see two on the preliminary plan and this was a subject of much discussion with the applicant when this plan was originally developed you can see two pedestrian access trails and if you would place that do you have one for the overhead that might you don't it would be this one Yes, there it is. There was a lot of discussion at the time this was approved to create pedestrian access from the residential area to the industrial area. A lot of that discussion centered on the fact that we'd like to encourage people to be able to walk to work. And that brings us, and you can see they agreed with that, and we have those pedestrian access ways shown connecting to Remington Way. Staff would also like to point out again, and the reason we wanted you to have this, you can see that in that area, we not only have the industrial zoned lot to accommodate the Sumatoma development, We have P1 zoning for office development. We have R4 zoning for high-density residential, the R3 in the area, the single family. And again, that's where we got the pedestrian access to Remington Way. And then, of course, there's B6P, B3, and additional B1 that you can see all located in this area of our community. Areas where we can have a diversity of development, a lot of different business, a lot of different residential development. and hopefully a lot of residents living there and working there. And staff, in reviewing this request, which was predicated on large-scale development and innovative design, reviewed it and considered the fact that, again, we have a lot of development that's going to happen in this area. and it is easy for staff at times and certainly the planning commission to sometimes get hung up on specific developments and we're aware how often you all and staff look at very specific developments. Here is a lot. Here is a building. Well, this is an important time to remember the big picture and it's an important time to remember what planning is all about. And one of the keys to our community and to a good, safe, efficient development of our community is efficient transportation network. And that transportation network is designed not only to facilitate vehicular traffic, but it is designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic and other modes of transportation as well. So in reviewing this request, staff talked it over with traffic engineering and other folks that obviously have an interest in our transportation system and our pedestrian facilities. And we have recommended disapproval of this waiver request. Staff does not believe the applicant has demonstrated any of the criteria necessary to innovative design. Granted, it's a large 30-acre site with a great big industrial building on it. Again, staff would point out that our original concern on the preliminary plan, that we have the ability to encourage people to walk to work. And we would certainly hope that Sumatoma does hire people that will choose to live in those neighborhoods and in this area. So, again, I would just reiterate that staff is recommending disapproval of this particular waiver, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes. This just deals with Lot 5, right? No, sir. The reason we handed out the preliminary is that it will extend all the way up and around the cul-de-sac, about 2,100 linear feet. To Lot 2 as well? Pardon? Along the fringe of Lot 2 as well. Along the, yes, sir, all along and up on the west side. Okay. Mr. Martin, with this, where exactly would the sidewalks start and stop on the west side? It exists from citation up to, or will if it hasn't been completed, to the Gatton Place Street, which is the street that runs towards Coldstream. Okay. To the right, to my right. And the rest, from that intersection all the way up around the cul-de-sac, they are proposing to remove it from the west side of the street. But it's going to be on the east side? Yes, sir. It will be on the east side. Where will it terminate? On the east side? Yeah. I would assume somewhere in the area of the cul-de-sac. So we lose the pedestrian connections on the west side? Again, that's one of staff's concerns. We don't know what they're offering. They haven't offered anything to date to deal with that pedestrian connection. Okay. Good deal. Any other questions? If not, applicant. Good afternoon. Oh, give me a minute. I'll put something up there. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. With me is Tim Haymaker, developer out here at the Coventry property. Those of you that were at subdivision committee, I had a small version of this that I handed out. I'll run you through real quick what our proposal is and then I'll let mr. A maker speak to you originally the cul-de-sac and the lot layout that they've had on their handout came much further into the site we weren't sure what these 80 some acres of industrial land would develop as we came in with the first big 30 acre piece first and now we're getting ready to bring to you a 20 acre piece so we've defined what the vast majority of the industrial land is going to be so with that we've looked at what we can do to the rest of it and where before the cul-de-sac came deep into the site we're thinking we have smaller ones we're showing a it ending here now just as we get to a lot these three industrial lots along with this industrial area in this large area shaded green is the detention for the Coventry development. There is a dam that is being constructed out here that will take care of our water quality and our water quantity for the development. The exhibit that you have from staff that shows the asterisks for the trail. At the time of the zone change, we had no idea where they were going. We just put a couple of asterisks lines on the drawing for future connections. Now that we've got the majority of it designed we're still showing a pedestrian connection coming off of spur road this comes across Georgetown this is the end of spur road pedestrian connection would come across the dam and link up with the cul-de-sac at this point we're proposing to keep the sidewalk on the side with the businesses if there's anyone walking to work this will be a direct link for them it will contact connect along all these businesses back down to this is Huntley that they talked about Gatton Way within Huntley the rest of the subdivision that is built this area is designed for R3 R4 more residential and then we have B6P and the elementary school that's under construction so the pedestrian system of Huntley Place bringing the sidewalks over to Remington Way would provide access pedestrian access for anyone coming from the residential zones to the school to the b6p future p1 here the condominium association and this link would be still in effect for everyone we're simply asking that along this greenway we're having a basin and a lot of grading put in for it that the sidewalk not be on this one side at subdivision committee we had a little short discussion as to whether or not the waiver was actually needed. And in staff's handout, the 620, this shows Exhibit 6-3. It is the typical street sections. And the third one down is listed as a residential collector. This is our typical industrial street with 60 feet wide, 41 feet back of curb, utility strips, and sidewalks. To the right of that's the words, and there's a note in there that says that sidewalk may be eliminated on one side when street is completely contained within an industrial area. So our discussion was whether or not the waiver was needed. Because Remington Way, the entire street, is not all within the industrial area, we were told the waiver was required. We're really just asking for the sidewalk to be eliminated through the portion that is within that industrial area, that is single-loaded to the greenway. and the slopes for the detention basin. So that is why, you know, there were some questions as to what was needed, the discussion of, you know, how much industrial land the street has to be in to be considered all in it. And I think Mr. Eamaker would like to. First, any questions for me? We'll let Mr. Eamaker speak. Good afternoon. Excuse me. Good afternoon. Thank you for hearing what I have to say. I hope you agree with me. Very simply, I don't want to say this in the wrong way, but sometimes just because words are on paper doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do. And when we talk about any innovative ways to access and keep the trail system and the connectivity, we've accomplished that. and a couple of things that i'll that i'll point out to you first of all we still don't know exactly what this part of the property is going to look like and so the connection that you saw earlier the two connections this one is a done deal we know what it is we know where it's going to be We have a few lots to build out down here, and we'll be finished. This is a 20-acre freight terminal. It'll have 34 employees. This is Sumitome, and it has about 200 on several shifts. And this is the professional office, the B6P, and two residential units. It would be much more practical when we get into developing the rest of the property to have the second connection come down in here someplace so that these two residential units can be much closer to the B6P where there will be great services for the people that live here and here. Something that has not been mentioned, but when we came to you a long time ago and there were some questions about the regional detention and we had to go to the Division of Water Quality to get them to go along with us. And one of the things they've asked is that we build a ramp up and down from Remington down into the bottom of the detention area. And that ramp is so that they can take heavy equipment down there in case there's silt buildup or flooding that's created issues. They want to be able to have a way to get. So that's going to go right over this sidewalk. Secondly, that sidewalk is adequate for 1,000 people, and we'll be fortunate to have 200 or 300, maybe, that would adequately use it. I can't think of anything less safe than to have 18 wheelers and people jaywalking across the sidewalk on the west to get over to the other side if they're working. They need to be concentrated in one area. and this is if they're going to be people here it needs to be directly into this cul-de-sac if they're going to be people from down here it can be a couple of ways either through the the the additional connection we'll make here or simply through the sidewalks that go this is surrounded by the uk agricultural farm and you know building this road frankly i think it's a road to nowhere but it is what it is and we're happy to to do this as the buffer area But this situation here, it just makes it so difficult for us to maintain it. And frankly, I just don't like to spend the money for something that's not going to be utilized. I can tell you, if you were at our homeowners association at Coventry on Tuesday night, you would have heard Councilman Akers say to the people that live here. And we have a good association here, by the way, how fortunate they are to have a developer who built a park as the first thing out there because there are no parks, predominantly no parks, and certainly none that have adequate playground equipment things on the north side on this Georgetown area. We built this. It cost us $200,000. We're probably talking about $25,000 or $30,000 here. But what I'm trying to say is we spend money where we get the most bang for the buck and the people that live there get the most reward. I live in a residential neighborhood that has sidewalks on one side of the street. The only disadvantage that we have is that the people that walk their dogs only walk up on one side of the street. They seem to like my mailbox better than they do other people's mailbox. but you know in in that case i fully agree that sidewalks on both sides of the street should have been there and it would still be nice to have them but it's too late but this there will be so few people out of here that actually work here sumatoma is a combination of two existing plants in lexington so they're not going to hire 200 people they're moving 200 people from two locations to this one and they will have their sidewalks and then we'll connect right here you're talking about maybe 16 or 1800 feet of sidewalk is all we're talking about so you know I'd be happy to answer your questions this back lot I'm going to tell you before anybody gets surprised we have three or four people looking at this 25 acre lot now we got three or four people that want 10 acres or 15 acres so we may be back to you and this might be two lots and I I can't tell you that that cul-de-sac is going to stop 100% right there, but I can tell you that wherever it is, it will be a logical connection across the dam, the regional detention basin we've built. It'll be a logical connection to get these people included in all this as well. Unfortunately, one of our questions just the other night was, how do we get underneath the interstate on the legacy trail? Well, you can't do it without going out over the cold stream and back up again because the U.K. farm won't let the people, agricultural farm won't let the people cross their land. So we're not hindering anything by this. And it's just it's a logical, commonsensical thing in our opinion. We're the guys that are out there that have to mow the grass. you're talking about having to we'd eat two two sides of a sidewalk every week we maintain our properties very well and to have the cost of that and then the ongoing maintenance cost of having to maintain that sidewalk for grass cutting or whatever this is a green space and it's it's much prettier without a sidewalk than it is with a sidewalk right through the edge of it so thank you very much thank you mr haymaker questions from planning commission yes sir i don't know if it um roy what about this this note about sidewalk may be eliminated on one side in the industrial area i mean maybe if somebody not wanted to be um i mean what's the need for the waiver if you've got because remington way is not entirely in industrial zone land. But you said you were eliminating the sidewalk only in the industrial. That was the discussion we had with staff, and staff said that because of the zoning map they showed you where Remington is larger than just this area, that's why we're here for a waiver. I think had the industrial come all the way down to Citation, we probably wouldn't need to be here. It would have just been a choice allowed under 6.8 and 6.3. So the staff said you needed to get waiver for that? Yes. Then they disapprove the waiver. Yes. But they approve the plan. Other questions? Roy, let me ask you this. As everyone's noted, there's a variety of zones out on Remington. The B6P land, is there a sidewalk in front of it? Or will there be a sidewalk in front of it? Along Huntley Place? Yeah, I don't believe Citation will have one. No, Remington. Oh, Remington side? Yes. And then you've got R4 land that adjoins that. Yes. There'll be sidewalks there. Yeah, Huntley Place is designed to have sidewalks on both sides. That's what we have at our end. Remington coming off of Citation, that cross section has sidewalks on both sides. And then as you get into the R4, each side will have it for the B6P and the residential. Mr. Haymaker said that the two pedestrian connections, just lines, didn't know where they were going to be. However, he did say that there would be connections to both of those with sidewalks. Sidewalks. Let's go up here. The R3 and R4 area in this has an improved preliminary subdivision plan. That's very old. We haven't done any development on. We've done many other layouts looking at different street alignments. So the second connection that would come from this over this way, we don't know where it's at. The preliminary plan where we got the zoning and the ability to build the streets, we put those asterisks on there as potential pedestrian connections. We didn't know where they would be. Typically, when we're here asking for approval to start construction plans, we don't know where connections will necessarily be. But your plans are to have a pedestrian connection there with a sidewalk? Yeah, that's what he just said. So, you know, I'm just trying to figure out, you know, the sidewalk that you're wanting to eliminate would be between the two pedestrian connections? Well, the plan we have now, we have shown it at this point, assuming that Gatton Way, which is this street here, will have its crosswalks and will get us over into this residential development when it comes. You know the difference I guess of where the sidewalk stops whether it stops right here at Gatton Way or if you stopped it right at the industrial zone on this side where the greenway ends stop it where the greenway begins. You know we're just looking at about 2100 feet give or take this 200 on the decision down here to have it eliminated next to the greenway and the slopes for the detention basin. I'm just trying to get it pinpointed. Yes sir. uh rory um that greenway that so that's where you're wanting eliminated in the green all down that is that is that got an exaggerated slope away from the curb in the greenway it's got a steep slope i mean so you you can't hang a sidewalk out in there you'd have to go in there and well no within your right of way you would you would bench your right away flat so that you could have the streets and the sidewalks and then you would you go with the steep slope down but you'd have to get in and and do a lot of work to get that. Yes, and I don't follow the construction side much. I didn't know about the ramp needed down there for the heavy equipment as well that has to be cut in there. Okay. So we're just talking about the slopes. Anyone else in the audience wants to speak on this plan? If there's no other questions, Mr. Martin, you got a rebuttal, I guess you'd say? I would like to address a couple of things. One, to make something very clear, that we may advise an applicant that they need a waiver. It does not mean we're going to automatically approve it. We may disapprove it. But that is the approach they have to take to address the land subdivision regulations. And in this case, yes, staff pointed out, and again, the reason we gave you this, is that that street serves various zones. And with the different businesses and residences, we believe people will walk this area and walk between the different uses in these zones. I would point out this is the first time that planning staff has seen this particular plan by the applicant. So we're not familiar with it. We haven't been able to fully vet it or really evaluate it. I would say that the greenway will be used, hopefully, by a lot of folks. And if they come up out of that greenway, they're going to cross that street. They will. If there's a sidewalk, we think they may be less likely to jaywalk or walk across that street and conflict with those 18-wheelers that we just heard were going to be there. So, again, staff believes in complete transportation systems and street systems, and just wanted to address that with you. Thank you, Mr. Mark. With that, any other questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among commission members and or motion. I can make a motion, I guess. any discussion if not go ahead okay I'm going to move approval of this plan 2015-123F including do you want a second motion for the waiver yes okay so I move approval of plan 2015-123F motion has been made for approval of plan 2015-123 elf do we have a second second by mrs richardson any discussion on the motion if not vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes yes sir mr chairman move approval of the waiver to eliminate the sidewalk in the Greenway area on the west side. Motions for approval of the associated waiver for the elimination of the sidewalk. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of waiver associated with Plan 2015-123-F. Any discussion on the motion? If not, vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. you're welcome moving on to page 4 item H plan 2015-125F Fritz Farm we do have a waiver with it as well Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item is item H on page 4, plan 2015-125F, the Fritz Farm, also known as Summit Lexington. this is a final record plat that you see before you it is for the summit development it is located here at nicholasville road and the intersection of manowar boulevard habersham is located here to the east at the rear with access in this location there is a right in right out that you are aware that's been approved to serve this development. We have access off of East Tiverton Way as well. I know that this body is very familiar with this development and the large mixed-use development that's taken place. They are currently installing the infrastructure on that site, and a lot of work's been going on. You just approved on your consent agenda a small amendment to the development plan for the development here in this location. What they are proposing with the record plan is to create these lots that you see before you. Of particular importance are these two lots that are being created, and we highlighted them for you. As you all are aware, this is a large development with over a million square feet of development in the buildings of various sizes and heights. Over 400,000 square feet is residential, and the applicant is moving forward with developing that residential property. One of the things that is necessary for them to do is to create lots in order to transfer property to the residential developer, which staff understands will be a condominium regime. Now, that law has changed. It's become a little more difficult to do condominiums than in the past. And with that, you can see that we have some various cleanup items on this plan. We have the standard sign-offs. We have various cleanup, as I noticed, about development of the property, referencing the previous waiver on the right in, right out, clarification of the East Everton Way frontage, improvements on the cross-section. They need to denote their stormwater structures and easements on the property. Again, it's a large property. There's a lot of development, and stormwater maintenance features are important. And then we have two items. Resolve the need for formal access to the new tracks. They have proposed a note. Staff has had the opportunity to visit that note with our legal, and I think we're confident that that can be resolved and that the appropriate note can be utilized to govern access as well as easements on this property. Again, it's a large, complicated commercial development with a lot of various interests at play, which they have addressed with a master document that has been recorded. The waiver is a very typical waiver that you've been receiving a lot lately, particularly with larger developments such as this, and that's the public sewer, the provision of public sewer to these lots. And what you've been hearing and what is the case in this development as well, they're developing all this infrastructure at one time. They're going to provide the sewer as they develop and build, and it's going to be private on this property. They are going to maintain it. It's not going to be a public responsibility. However, they do need to create the lots, get them recorded to facilitate that residential development, which is a very important component of the mixed-use development in this location. As you know, residential's a required component, and staff is very pleased that they are proceeding with that as a first phase of this development. With that, your subdivision committee has recommended approval. Staff has prepared a waiver report for you that's been handed out. The waiver reviews the plat, as I just did with you, and notes that staff is recommending approval of this waiver for the similar reason that we've approved these types of waivers before. It's a large-scale development. The infrastructure is going in, and it will be privately maintained. They will, of course, have to meet all applicable standards and regulations that govern sanitary sewers both on the state and local level. And with that, I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? No? Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the Summit Development. I was going to get into the whole subdivision and the need for the condominium regime, but I think Mr. Martin did an excellent job, and we're in complete agreement with the staff's conditions and also with the conditions on the waiver request. I'm happy to take any questions if you all have any, or I can go into further detail on any of the subjects that are in play. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion from commission members. Yes, sir. If there's no discussion, I'll make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2015-125F. We'll do the waiver separately, correct? Yes, sir. motion has been made and said by mr. burr second by miss Monday for approval of the plan please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes and then the waiver mr. chairman move for approval of the waiver first test recommendation thank you motion been made in second for the approval of associated waiver with Plan 2015-125F. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you folks. Turn over page 5. Plan 2006-157F. Blackford property. Phase 3. This is a re-approval. Mr. Chairman, the item ahead of that was pulled from the consent. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Back up just one item. It's item J, 2015-127F Evans Mill Farm Subdivision. Is the applicant here? No? Yes? Okay. Do we have information that? Yes, sir. We do. We do. Okay. I believe the affidavit has been supplied. Okay. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I could take about 30 seconds. Yes, sir. To review this with you on the overhead. All right. We have received an affidavit and a photograph of the sign that's been posted. There are a couple of errors in the affidavit, and I think the commission should be aware of this before you act on it. This affidavit cites compliance with the zoning ordinance for the sign posting. Technically, this is a requirement of your land subdivision regulations and not the zoning ordinance. So the wrong section has been noted in the affidavit. Also, it is stamped by a notary from the state of Tennessee, not from the state of Kentucky. I've reviewed your subdivision regulations, and it does not state in your subdivision regulations that it be notarized from a Kentucky notary. But at that point, though, it kind of begs the question whether the commission is comfortable with this information to proceed with considering this plan. The photograph does show that the sign is in order, and I can attest that the staff has received phone calls about this subdivision since the sign was posted. But I think this is something probably the commission should consider, whether you're comfortable going ahead and hearing this plan or not. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the commission? Any thoughts from the commission? Any concerns about whether to go forward or not? It's still not going to be a condition. What's the affidavit for just to say the sign's up? It's a requirement of your subdivision, yes, basically yes. It's a requirement for notice of a plat involving a subdivision for properties owned AR, AN, or AB, that the sign be posted two weeks prior to your meeting. It does appear the sign was posted. And all a notary does is just say that's his signature. It doesn't matter where it's. That's right. Mr. Berkley? No. Ready to go forward? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Yes, sir. Again, I will apologize that it's small, but it was on your consent agenda, so we didn't color it up and blow it up like we usually do. I can also attest that the sign was up. As Mr. Sally said, we got calls. There was a gentleman here before the meeting started that I spoke to for several minutes about this very property because he lives out there and he saw the sign. So he showed up and our staff was able to answer his questions. And so he left. So he's no longer here. That being said, we're out in an area off Evans Mill Road, which is off of Old Richmond Road out in the southeast part of our county. Evans Mill comes in and gets to Cedar Creek Lane, which runs out in this location. The purpose of this agricultural subdivision is to create these two lots, one of approximately 90 acres and the remaining to be a little over 270 acres. It's a very simple, straightforward agricultural subdivision of this property into two lots. You can see from your agenda that we have just a few conditions on that. They're the standard sign-off conditions for a record plat from your various entities, governmental and utility. They will, of course, need the Board of Health's approval of a septic system. And then they need to highlight various things like non-billable areas, which are an aspect of your land subdivision regulations, along with building lines, floodplain clarification. Again, these are all very much standard conditions on an agricultural plat that you see before you today. Your subdivision committee did recommend approval, and as you're aware, it was on your consent agenda. So with that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Does the applicant have anything to add? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I think we'll move on and close this part off and open it up for a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chairman, move approval of Plan 2015-127F, Evans Mill Farm Subdivision. Thank you. Motion was seconded by Ms. Mundy. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Now for Blackford Property Plan 2006-157F. This is a reapproval, as I mentioned a moment ago. Good afternoon. We are going to look at Plan 2006-175F, Blackford Property, Phase 3, Unit 1B. This is a re-approval of the plan. It was originally brought in in 2006. Sometimes we go through or the applicant goes through and they section out certain areas because they don't have sewers or they have everything available or streets. They have come in and asked for reapproval because originally this section here was done in 2006. They recorded this and then they recorded a couple lots under Section 2. and that left these two lots here in the Blackford area on Blackford Parkway. Greenbrier is up here to the top here. But they had two lots that were left without sewer. So they've come back and asked for reapproval so that they can get this plan reviewed and recorded for those last two lots. They have the typical conditions, sign-off conditions, complete exaction information because this is located in the expansion area. denote parking on one side of the street and conditions 3 and 5 with building inspection and urban forester. They've been revised since 2006. The urban forester is now responsible for the street tree information. So that's been removed from building inspection. So we just had a minor change on the conditions. But other than that, if there's anything else that the commission has, questions? Questions? Chairman. Yes, sir. One quick question. It says that this original approval had its, when did it expire? Well, it was approved in 2006. They recorded a section, then they came back and recorded a section, the second section in 2007. So nothing's happened since 2007. So that plan was more or less expired since then. And then now they're asking for re-approval because they have two additional lots that were originally approved but were never recorded. So now they're asking for a re-approval so they can record those last two lots on the property. Mr. Wilson, the commission's approval would have expired on this plan August 10th of 2007. It's good for one year from your action. Other questions? Applicant, anything to add? Nope. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, I can entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move approval of Plan 2006-157F, Blackford Property, Phase 3, Unit 1B, with the previous conditions that were noted, also noting the minor changes to number three and number five because of the condition that changed within the structure of the inspector's office. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson for reapproval of Blackford Property Plan 2006-157F. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. At the bottom of page 6, continuing on page 7, is development plan. It's DP 2015-95, Poole and Jefferson property. You do have a revision, which is on a blue sheet of paper before you. Thank you. Mr. Selle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, good afternoon. This item is on the bottom of page 6. It is DP 2015-95. This is an amended final development plan for the Poole and Jefferson property. It's also known as part of the Bruce Glenn property. And this property has an address of 3340 Richmond Road. We have provided to you a handout on the blue page. that has just a couple of changes to the recommendation that was reviewed last week by your subdivision committee. And also I've handed out to you a double-sided sheet, one that describes the conditional zoning restrictions in place on this property for the past 20 years, and the other side showing the requirements of Article 16-8 of the zoning ordinance, which deals with landscaping for vehicle sales lots. I'd like to orient you first to the development plan, And then I will show some photographs of the property as well. This development plan is for the Glenn Auto Dealership, which is on Richmond Road at Eagle Creek Drive. This is the signalized intersection of South Eagle Creek here, extending across Richmond Road, North Eagle Creek, serving the St. Joseph East Hospital area. There are a number of automobile dealerships located on this southeast corner of the intersection. There is a service road that is here on the property, extending off the development plan through some adjoining commercial property that eventually extends to an intersection along Squires Road just to the north of this subject property that's before you. So there is a complete service road through part of the dealership, through a number of commercial properties, in very close proximity to the easternmost corner of the subject property. The plan is in for commission consideration because this dealership, which I believe is the Nissan dealership of the multiple ones that are out there, is proposing an expansion to their building. And, of course, that expansion is on this end of the property. Reviewing this development plan, it became aware to the staff that there was conditional zoning placed on a portion of the property. That is the easternmost portion. This plan also proposes a change to the vehicle parking and vehicle storage, if you will, for this portion of the dealership. I would like to show you a few photographs of the property at this time, just to orient you, and also to describe the landscaping issue that kind of arose from the staff's review of this development plan. This is a view of the Glenn property. Again, to orient you, this is Richmond Road. The intersection with Eagle Creek is just off the photograph here and extends along their frontage here. This is Squires Road, which also has a signalized intersection with Richmond Road. This is the commercial area I just described. the service road being generally in this location, bisecting this portion of the dealership. This is the building that is proposed for expansion, and the other part of the amendment deals with the vehicle parking on this portion of the property. This is a little closer view of this area. It is mostly graveled, although there is considerable vegetation between this parking area and a finger of the reservoir that comes right up to Squires Road. Squires Road actually crosses a portion of the reservoir in this area. Here's a little closer view of the Squires Road frontage. As you can see from the handout, in 1995 there was a requirement for a landscape buffer to be installed along this portion of the property. And on their development plan, they are showing a 10-foot landscape buffer area here. The photograph shows that there are a number of existing trees along this property perimeter, as there are along this portion of the service road here. The next photograph, though, indicates that there is a location here on Squires Road directly opposite of the entrance to a private club directly across Squires Road that does not meet the technical requirement of the conditional zoning. This was a zone change that was recommended for disapproval by the staff and by the Planning Commission that was later approved by the council in 1995. So these conditional zoning restrictions were put in place at the council hearing the night that the rezoning was approved. The other landscaping issue has to do with the area immediately surrounding the enlarged dealership. The staff does not believe that the interior landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance are being met on that area. And so those two issues led to discussion items at your subdivision committee meeting one week ago, which also prompted the postponement recommendation on this plan from the subdivision committee. In looking at the site in the field, the staff is proposing that the discussion items basically be altered. The first nine conditions that appear on the agenda and on the revised recommendation are unchanged, and those are the typical agency sign-offs from mostly the other divisions of the urban county government. That would be fire, urban forestry, building inspection, traffic engineering, engineering, the usual agencies that review all of your development plans and subdivision plans. And we're asking them, of course, for their sign-off approval on this plan amendment as well. Condition number 10 is also unchanged. The staff is recommending that zone-to-zone screening be identified on the plan. They are proposing a note on the plan stating that zone-to-zone screening will be required. I think what the staff is recommending that along this buffer or boundary where the property abuts residential zoning, that it be indicated whether it will be a 5-foot or 15-foot buffer because there is a choice in complying with Article 18 on its width. We would like that information added along this property line. That's what that condition relates to. Condition 11, denote the conditional zoning restrictions on the plan. That would basically just be a copy of the information that we've handed you. We would like that added to this development plan. That's a typical situation that we find with all of our development plans. We like to get that conditional zoning information on our development plans. Condition number 12 you will see is proposed to be changed from the discussion item. The staff would recommend that we document or ask the applicant to document compliance with the interior landscaping requirements for the lots impacted by this plan. That would be the lot surrounding the building in red on the plan where the dealership is expanding, and also the lot closest to Squires Road that is going from gravel to pavement. Those two areas we want to make sure do meet the interior landscaping requirements. The other lots on the plan really are not being affected by this amendment. Some of them do meet. Some of them probably do not meet those requirements. Finally, the condition 13 would be revised from a discussion item to a condition that would read obtain compliance with the conditional zoning restrictions by doing two things in terms of landscaping. One would be to augment the tree area on Squires Road that is opposite the private club where the trees are not 15 foot on center. staff estimates that that's probably going to entail the planting of three or four trees to make it where those spacings will meet the 15-foot requirement. The rest of this line, we believe, from a site visit, does have sufficient trees to meet that requirement. The other is that a three-foot-high hedge be planted not in the 10-foot buffer area, but instead along the edge of the new paved area at the time that that paving goes in. What that would accomplish, in our estimation, it would still meet the technical requirement of the conditional zoning because there would be an edge installed by the applicant along the reservoir side and the roadside. It would not require the removal of the screening and the hedge material that is there now, even though that material probably does not comply with the planting manual requirements. The species does not look to be met by the planting manual. It is a very solid hedge, and it would really be a shame to see that removed. It would be a great deal of work for the applicant to have to do that. We think a superior way to meet the conditional zoning requirement is to have the landscaping adjacent to the new paving rather than adjacent to the road and the reservoir. This seems to maximize, in our estimation, the buffering that was called for 20 years ago without having to remove the existing material that's there. I hope I've been able to explain the staff's position on these two revisions. At this time, before you hear from the applicant, I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have about the conditional zoning in place or about our recommendation on this plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. questions for mr. Sally no not at this time thank you happen anything dad in agreement with revisions thank you for the revisions only briefly Jacob Walbert on behalf of the applicant we are in agreement with staff recommendations very very appreciative of the staff I think including them making a site visit out there yesterday to review the screening that is in place out there we will absolutely comply with these conditions and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Any questions, Mr. Wahlberg? No? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, if there's no questions, I'll close this part of hearing, open it up for discussion and or motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of DP 2015-95 with the 13 revised conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second, Mr. Wilson? Yes. Thank you. Motion's been made in second and four approval of the revised conditions for plan DP 2015-95 pool in Jefferson property. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. We move to page 10 at the bottom page item J DP 2003-124 Bryan Station Center. This is another reapproval. Good afternoon, Chairman, Commission, members of Commission. This is Development Plan 2003-124 for Bryan Station Center, Phase 2, for property located at 1651 Bryan Station Road. It will orient you a bit here. is east new circle road old paris pike is the next signalized intersection in this direction and bryan station road intersection with new circle is is right here this is large grassy area that is behind the current commercial area this is the development plan pertaining to that area the Planning Commission had originally approved this plan and pardon the typo it's actually their December 11th 2003 meeting this plan was for the addition of a new building here on lot 5 6600 square feet these two buildings here being depicted are existing and this is a proposed new building it was approved subject to the original conditions you see listed there one through nine and i will not go through those the plan was certified on march 8th 2004 meeting all of these nine conditions under article 21-4f the zoning ordinance no additional building permits can be issued for this plan until it's reapproved it has expired so the applicant brings this plan to you today for reapproval after review of this plan by the staff we have recommended reapproval subject to the conditions previously applied in 2003, adding the following conditions on page 11. Number five, the Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas, of which there are some here in the rear of the lot. Number 10, adding the following condition, the approval of the Division of Fire and Water Control Office. Number 11, CAP program approval. And number 12, addition of a second Planning Commission certification to this plan, referencing today's meeting date and action. Okay? So if you have any questions at this point, we'll be glad to take them. Any questions? No? Yes? No? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? No? Okay. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, move re-approval of DP-2003-124, Bryan Station Center, with the 12 conditions of staff recommendations. Thank you, and the motion was seconded by Ms. Mundy. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. turn to page 11 item k dp 99-127 in dc property another real or another reapproval yes Thank you. Okay. Yes. All right. Good afternoon. We are moving to DP 2099-127 NDC property, Lexington Christian Academy. This is located over off of Post Road and Reynolds Road. Lexington Christian Academy was built on the old Reynolds Road, old Reynolds Tobacco, and they have now come in. And with this development plan, let me start again. And this development plan has expired, and they're wanting to come in and build a box in for stats on the back of this baseball field. Since the plan was approved in 99, it has now expired. And they had a couple of minor plans that have come through since then, and that's what you'll see as far as the letter. There were some minor revisions. I gave you a copy of the two minor plans on here, which show just slight changes. We're just adjusting some parking, moving some parking around, moving some square footage from one building to another. But it all stayed within a minor. But now they want to come back and build the box behind the baseball field. And so they need a plan that is active before they can issue a building permit. So that's why they're asking for re-approval on this plan. We have our standard conditions. And with that, we also asked for a couple additional with the fire, the capacity assurance. And then also, as Dave had just pronounced, we had asked for a new Planning Commission certification area because this plan has expired and we're bringing it back. We want to make sure that we have that note on here and have it dated and signed again. And with that, I'll leave that with you all. Any questions? Questions from Ms. Gall? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? Yes, sir? If I may, sir. My name is Terry Johnson. I'm the athletic director at Lexington Christian Academy. I just wanted to clarify one thing. The box that's proposed is behind the baseball stadium. However, its purpose is for softball. It's a softball scores box, basically. It's us rectifying a Title IX issue that we've had, making sure that our facilities are up to par, and it's replacing a shed, basically a storage shed, and instead putting in a permanent building. I just wanted to make that clarification. It is behind the baseball field, but behind the baseball field is a softball field complex right here. It's this box right there, and that's the purpose is to rectify a Title IX issue that we've had. It is not a luxury suite. No. Okay, thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Any other questions from the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I recommend a re-approval of plan DP-99-127 in D.C. property of lexon christian academy with the 11 conditions as outlined by staff thank you motion's been made and seconded for reapproval of dp99-127 with now 11 conditions please vote motion passes thank you folks thank you for coming uh i'm gonna move to page 13 there's an addendum it's plan 2015-78f loudon park this is a plan if i'm correct we have approved they have determined that there is the need for a waiver you have a waiver before you that we need to hear at this time and while they're setting up i'll let mr craven take care of some other actions Mr. Chairman Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of the release and call of bonds Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds from the memo random dated November 12, 2015. Please vote on the screen That motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Cravens Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission The item that you see before you on your addendum is a final record plat. You recently approved this plat. It is located out on North Limestone and Loudoun Avenue. Across from here would be the old Lex Tran building, historic structure here. Over here across Loudoun, you just recently approved an adaptory reuse that was in the paper for Miss Lucy Sloan's new restaurant. you may have read about in this location. There's a building right here on this location and one that sits on this lot. This one's vacant. And the purpose of this plat that, again, as I said, you previously approved, was to create these three lots. During the course of the certification of this plat in order to get it recorded, the applicants, and you've heard of No Lie and that group that is doing a lot of work in this part of town, and there's a lot of excitement and synergy and activities going on. This is another aspect of their redevelopment, trying to redevelop these properties. What they discovered, in order to meet the requirements of the land subdivision regulations, this lot had to be on public sewer, which is located out in the right-of-way of Loudoun. In investigating the need to do that, they discovered it was going to cost them $30,000 or more. They were going to be tearing into a lot of existing infrastructure, ramps, sidewalks, various items that already existed. The other thing that they learned was that there was a line going out to the North Limestone public sewer. What they are asking you today is to approve a waiver that would allow them to use this line that serves lot two to serve lot three. going to North Limestone, but they don't want it to be a public line. So the waiver is to allow them to sewer this lot with a private line and what would be a private easement, similar to what you just saw on Summit, only on a much smaller scale. However, again, staff would point out they have requested this under your infill and redevelopment criteria in the land subdivision regulations, and this certainly is the epitome of the type of problem that people can run into when they're trying to redevelop property in older parts of town. This is not an unusual circumstance, really, and there is a lot of associated high costs with this type of development. So with that, staff has reviewed this, and we are recommending approval of this waiver subject to conditions that you see on your waiver report, which again is language specifying they must meet state of Kentucky and local requirements on that sewer and have language governing maintenance. It will be private, as I stated. It will not be public responsibility in this location. I would add that the applicant nor their representative is here today. that's again as i stated there's a lot of excitement a lot of things going on out there but apparently sometimes they do struggle a little bit with our system and our meeting schedule this isn't the first one they've missed but with that being said staff does recommend approval of the plat and the waiver uh mr borden have we already approved the plat you have yes sir and it's back for a waiver similar to the Coventry. Do we have to approve the plat or just the waiver? Well, the plat needs a waiver. So in essence, you know, you're approving the plat with the waiver. Okay. All right. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am. You said they are going to maintain that. Does that run with the land, that maintenance agreement, if they sell the property? It will have to, yes, ma'am. It'll be specified that they'll have to share that maintenance and it'll be privately maintained. And we will expect to see notes on the plat to that effect. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and or a motion. As Mr. Martin said, a motion for the plat along with waiver if you'd like. So we do need to make a motion for the plat again or just the waiver? I think just the waiver. Just the waiver. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for approval of the waiver for Plan 2015-78F. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for the waiver associated with Plan 2015-78F. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next on the agenda would be under commission items, review of University and TIF development area application for several properties located between South Broadway and the North Fork and Southern Railway. Just want to mention before we get started, this is an unusual situation because we have at least one person in the audience who would like to speak to this. We have never had any audience discussion for either a TIF or a public facility review, but there are two people here that I know one would like to speak and I'm not sure about the other. before you take any kind of action on this, just to let you know. This is a review of a TIF application for properties off of South Broadway, generally between the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks to the east and South Broadway to the west. It's going to be known as the University Village TIF development area. The map up here, the outline is, I mean the outline of the boundary of the TIF development area is the black line. It's parts of Simpson Avenue, parts of Burley Avenue, parts of American Avenue, and then all of the little streets that connect those streets within that area. Unlike other TIFs that we've had in the past, this is not a mixed-use project in a blighted area TIF. This is what is called a state real property ad valorem development area, and it's because they're building only residential structures as opposed to any kind of mixed-use buildings in here. They're only building residential structures once the infrastructure improvements are done. And because of that, it's not eligible to do a mixed-use project in a blighted area. It has to be done the other way. The University Village Project meets the qualifications, the statutory qualifications for this type of a TIF, and it has to result in a new economic activity and have a net positive economic and fiscal impact to the Commonwealth. It has to result in a minimum capital investment of $10 million, and a lot of words to say that it can't have any commercial like restaurants or retail or anything like that. it says not more than 20% of the capital investment or 20% of the finished square footage shall be devoted to the support of development of assets that will be utilized for the retail sale of tangible personal property. That's a lot of words to say, that one little thing, but anyway. It's in an area where there is substantial deterioration in public infrastructure, and so it is eligible to use TAC increments to pay for the infrastructure costs, And those would be done by the improvements to the area and the increase in property values. There are TIFs. TIF is allowed all across the country pretty much. And each state has its own regulations as far as TIPS go. Each has its own recovery period. They vary anywhere from 7 years to 30 years. Kentucky's is 20 years, so it has a 20-year recovery period. And as you know, your role is to review what they're asking in light of the comprehensive plan, compliance with the comprehensive plan. So all we're reviewing today is the creation of the TIF development area. It's not anything to do with any other kind of development plans or anything like that that have been approved for the area. It's just the creation of the TIF development area. And then once you review it and certify that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan, It gets forwarded to the Urban County Council, and they review it for impacts to the tax structure, to revenues, and all kinds of things. And if they approve it, it gets sent to the State Economic Development Cabinet, and there are two levels of review there. If it's approved by the state, then a formal agreement is entered into between the Urban County Government and the state, and then the TIF is implemented. This TIF area is about 38 acres, and that doesn't include the street rights-of-way. And that is much less than the three square miles that is generally the requirement for a TIF or the limitation for a TIF. All the properties are zoned residentially, but these two down, these two right here, those are zoned P1, professional office. And I was told that the boundary was determined as the result of the type of TIF that it is. It is going to be funded by a portion of real estate property tax, And so it has to be a larger area than just the small area that they're going to do the infrastructure improvements. And Bill, if you could put the second one up there, please. It's kind of hard to see. But again, the boundary of the TIF goes generally like this. It's all that big area. and then the area highlighted in green is just the area where the infrastructure improvements are going to be, the stormwater detention and the new residential. Dennis Anderson is the developer of this property or the area, and he is redeveloping several properties that either have been neglected over the years or else they're already vacant. And once this is done, the residential will supplement the single-family residential uses to the south, which would be all of these in here, and then the student housing to the north. He's going to do this with a combination of townhouses and apartments, and parking will have permeable pavers so that it will allow for better water infiltration into the storm detention basin, and then will help with the stormwater management in the area. The improvements will help mitigate all the stormwater problems in the area that are generally originating off-site, and the overall project cost would be over $27 million, and then it would be about $5 million, just a little bit less than $5 million, just for the infrastructure improvements. And that would be for the installation of the oversized underground detention basin, relocation of sanitary sewer lines to construct the basin, and construction of street, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements in the area. This site is near UK. It's near the hospitals. It's near downtown. and so it can have the potential to provide live-wore-your-work opportunities for people that might want to take advantage of that, and that's something that's endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan, especially in the 2013 plan. And then back in 1990, the South Broadway Corridor Plan was adopted as an element of the 88 Comprehensive Plan, and it carried over to the 96th Plan. It contains a lot of valuable information. Even though it has sunsetted, it's been sunsetted for several years. They're usually good. The small area plans are usually good for about 10 years, so it has been sunsetted for a long time. but it still contains a lot of valuable information and recommendations about the area, and it can still be consulted even though it is over 25 years old. Sections of the plan that address infrastructure and all of that stuff that has to do with the area are still applicable, and there are valuable recommendations in there. The things that are going to be remedied with the TIF are included as recommendations in that South Broadway corridor plan, And so it is, we're not really basing compliance with the comprehensive plan on that document, but that document does have a lot to say about the area and does contribute to it. And then, as with all of the TIF applications, there are eligible and not eligible improvements. And the eligible improvements usually deal with infrastructure and that kind of thing, like utilities, relocation of sanitary sewer lines, storm sewer lines, and that kind of stuff. this one also includes the parking areas that are going to be part of the apartment and the townhouse complexes because they have the permeable pavers and they are going to contribute to stormwater management so that is TIF eligible and then the ineligible in this one are just the residential structures themselves and then other miscellaneous costs that like closing costs and that kind of stuff that are not not eligible for TIF the 2013 plan we have six themes in the plan and then goals and objectives to facilitate the plan are included with each theme. All the themes apply either directly or indirectly and offer a level of support, whether it's a lot or just a little, to developing the TIF district. And then the goals and objectives, they are included as well. There are some that support and some that can be construed either way, but those are all listed on pages three to five of your staff report. Destination 2040 and the text of the comprehensive plan also support this, mainly chapters 3 and 7 of the plan. They provide a high level of support. And chapter 7 has a statement in there that the overall strategy of infill and redevelopment is the improvement, reinvigoration, and development of quality neighborhoods that create compact development, livable neighborhoods, and viable neighborhood commercial centers, along with public services and spaces that support the efficient use of the land. And it also says that it should encourage affordability and flexibility in housing choices for everybody. It says that it should stimulate economic investment in established communities, and it should provide developers with more options, a greater number of options, to make development more economically feasible. And this is all in direct support of the TIF application. Part of the certification of the ComPlan, as you know, is to include any recommendations regarding rezoning, text amendments, or anything else that might need to be done to accomplish the TIF. And the development area has had at least four zone changes within the last 10 to 15 years to allow for higher density residential, and that's just within its boundary. The properties where the new multifamily is proposed have been rezoned to R1T or R4, and they've been rezoned for several years. Both of those zones allow townhomes and group residential projects, which are basically multiple residential structures on one lot. And at the time the zone changes were submitted, they had a preliminary development plan. We've also had final development plans over the years to concretize what they have proposed with their preliminary development plans. And they have given the locations, basically, and the sizes, buildings, the number of parking spaces, whatever. this project will probably even though the zone zoning has been in place for a long time this project will probably be a long time into the future because of the number of improvements and the amount of improvements that are needed even before the properties can be developed and this TIF can be one way to accomplish that part of the project assuming that it's approved and the 2007 comprehensive plan has a vision for Lexington and that's also been endorsed by the 2013 plan. It says that the built areas of Lexington are a collection of diverse and unique neighborhoods, and together they form the building blocks of the community. And the challenge of our planning efforts is to maintain that, the development pattern, as well as allow redevelopment and maintaining the high quality of life that we have. So creation of the TIFT development area and the implementation of the project fit the vision, and they'll help implement the cited goals and objectives that are in your staff report, And then the infrastructure improvements that are proposed will comply with, and they'll help further the goals and the recommendations, or the requirements, actually, of the consent decree, as well as the comprehensive plan. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I would be happy to try to answer them. Questions? And then we do have the two. Ms. Plumley? Yes, Barbara. On page two, the second paragraph, there's reference to a retention basin. It probably should be. It's detention. It is, and I changed that on the copy that will go to the state. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Other questions? Barb, just to clarify, we're here today to determine if this is in compliance with our comprehensive plan. Yes. The council will do what? the council reviews it with with regard to implications for taxes revenue that'll be created that kind of thing and then still goes to the state yes okay all right thank you others that'd like to speak yes sir good afternoon mr chair members of the commission jacob walburn on behalf of anderson communities I'm going to say that less is more on my account as Ms. Rackers has done a fantastic job of explaining why this is in accord with the comprehensive plan. I did want to make myself available for questions and also to introduce Mr. Casey Bolton with Commonwealth Economics. He helped create the economic report that informs some of the values and figures that you've received here. Sitting through several of your all's meetings here recently, I know you've considered several zone changes in this area. This is an area that is impacted by chronic flooding, and we think that the infrastructure improvements that we are proposing through this TIF will help remediate some of that flooding, if not all of the flooding in that area. That said, Ms. Rikers has done an excellent job. Can't applaud the staff enough for their hard work. They asked many difficult questions, but we've provided them with information, and would be happy to entertain your questions at this time. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Walburn at this time? No? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Others that would like to speak? Yes, ma'am. My name is Ginny Daly, and I live at 136 Burley Avenue. I live directly in the neighborhood being affected by this development. and I know that you usually don't hear people speaking at this juncture, so I really appreciate you allowing me some time right now. I'm here today to ask that you find that Anderson Community's application to create a TIF development area is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan, or at least find that there's not enough information to make a determination at this point. I'm going to go over three points here. the first one is the longest one and the most important one probably. First of all, this University Village project does not have a certified final development plan associated with the project that one can readily evaluate any compliance with or against the comprehensive plan. Just a little history here. As you'll recall, when Mr. Anderson submitted a final development plan for this area, the project he wants to develop, it was lacking the required stormwater management study and the sanitary sewer plan. The subdivision committee, the planning staff, and numerous members of the neighborhood recommended postponement until these reports could be received and reviewed by engineering, primarily because the stormwater issues that were going to be created by this development plan were so significant as to probably alter the final plan. Mr. Anderson came back and argued that it would be more economical for him if the commission would approve the plan at that point rather than have him come back after the studies were in. The majority of the commission voted to approve the plan pending receipt, review, and approval of the two sewer plans, sanitary and storm. To this day, the stormwater study and sanitary sewer plan have not been submitted and the development plan has not been certified. With this application for the TIF area, They claim to need financial support for stormwater and sanitary sewer infrastructure, but have not included anything but a vague drawing of proposed retention areas that differ dramatically from the detention tanks in that final development plan submitted over a year ago. There are no reports, comments from a licensed engineer, no plan details, no permits, nothing to really evaluate the merits or the costs of this TIF development project. And as an aside, I should point out there's a misconception that there is currently a flooding problem in the area. There is not. The current landscaping of the subject property that Anderson wants to work with, the existing university village apartments that he already owns and has constructed, And the adjacent campus-down condominium properties contain an intentionally constructed stormwater retention system that reflects natural hydrologies, which is cited by both the EPA and Lexington's own engineering manual as embracing current best practices. And just to briefly describe that, when it rains, these bowls fill up, and they drain appropriately, and that reflects the natural ebb and flow. And that is current best practices of stormwater management and flow. In short, what we have now works. There is not a flooding problem in my neighborhood. The only thing creating a stormwater problem in the area is Anderson's proposed development. He needs, because of the flow that his development will cause, an extra burden, and he wants to build on top where these valleys are right now, so he's going to destroy the existing, well-working stormwater management in there, build on top of it, and create more problems. That's why he needs funding for infrastructure, stormwater. There's not a problem there now. He is requesting a TIF to solve a problem he is creating, asking for public funding to support a private venture. And let's not be an IE. There are numerous ways this property can be developed or redeveloped that are in compliance with the comprehensive plan and which did not create a stormwater problem that requires public support. There are alternatives here. With an incomplete and uncertified final development plan and a vague drawing submitted with this application of underground retention areas that differ greatly from the development plan, how is there enough solid information to evaluate whether this TIF is in fact compliance with the comp plan. Surely the final development plan is not in accord with the comprehensive plan until and unless the stormwater business is met and approved. The bottom line is you should not find the TIF as proposed in accord with the comprehensive plan because it does not yet meet the zoning ordinance requirements denoted on the final development plan. Secondly, I would like to call into question the designation of the TIF boundary proposed by the applicant. And this is my picture here, my modified picture of their illustration of the boundaries, the black outlines. Please ask the applicant who decided on this particular boundary and why. The proposed boundary does not jive with the explanation of the project and the request to TIF support. While the application specifically states that they plan to manage stormwater originating from across the railroad tracks, no properties from across the railroad tracks are included in this TIF boundary. Also, if you're familiar with the area up on Export Street, the Holiday Inn Express, the UK Anthropology Building, the Credit Union, the topography of that area causes runoff back down into the proposed area that's being managed fine just now. Anyways, those properties are not included in this TIF package. Why not? Meanwhile, numerous properties that would appear to have no impact on the stormwater and no benefit from the improvements are included. So on this picture that I've got here, the red with the arrows, they're the land that's not included in the TIF but do contribute stormwater to the property that Anderson owns. The yellow with the question marks are residential areas that would have no benefit or no impact at all on this. So I don't know why those are in there. With no rationale offered for the boundary drawn as is, it would be hard to evaluate whether the actual development area is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Lastly, I would like to challenge the relevance of the specific themes, goals, and objectives outlined in the application, some of which are echoed by the planning staff statement. And I won't go into detail on this, but suffice it to say that this application simply includes text plucked out of the comp plan and offers no explanations as to how or even how well this TIF project supports these specific objectives. I could handily argue down many of these items listed, such as how this project does not respect the area's context and design features, how a project that clear cuts mature tree canopy, paves all over existing green space, and creates a stormwater problem does not protect natural resources and landscapes before development occurs, How this project does not encourage public safety and reduce opportunities for crime when, in fact, large developments of transient student housing actually attract crime and then bring it on into my neighborhood with single-family dwellings. Or that this project does nothing to encourage the development of appropriate attractions and support uses that promote tourism. I don't know where they came up with that one. My point is that there's a lot of text in this application that simply fluffs up the importance of this project and does not render a true picture of how well this project complies with or supports the comprehensive plan. I hope that you will take a hard look at this application and ask questions, lots of questions. At the very least, this application does not provide enough information for you to properly evaluate whether or not the proposed TIF project is in line with the comp plan. In fact, it appears that this project does not comply with the comp plan at all, given that the primary development plan for this TIF area does not yet meet the zoning requirements listed on the final development project. Thank you so much. Thank you. Others? Yes, ma'am. Thank you for your time. I will be very brief. Amy Clark at 628 Castle Road. I simply have a question about the TIF funds associated with street improvements. you're probably recalling that some streets, some public rights of way were closed for this project. Are the street improvements actually for the private roads on the development, or are these public roads that the infrastructure, new infrastructure would be? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Walburn, any sort of rebuttal, just briefly? Yes, briefly, and I'll respond in reverse order of how we were approached. With regard to the closed streets, TIF funds are only eligible for public infrastructure, so we can't use these funds, or Mr. Anderson cannot use these funds to do private things. This is for public infrastructure only, so no, it is not for the rights of way that have been closed. I will briefly touch on the other remarks that you've heard. We're not here today on a final development plan. This is a TIF development area. The best analogy I can draw to you is this is more like a zone change than it is a development plan certification. You're to look at broader, bigger themes, and I think that this project is absolutely in accord with the comp plan. With regard to the TIF boundaries, that's an economic consideration. I would invite Mr. Bolton, if you have specific questions about how those boundaries were drawn, I can speak to some of it would be beyond the reach. This is kind of if you look at the boundaries, it is within a cohesive neighborhood area. But with respect to specific drawings of the boundaries, I would defer to Mr. Bolton and the economics. And then finally, with regard, as Ms. Rackers said, some parts of the comprehensive plan offer more support than others. And I will fully admit that. However, I would suggest to you that the water quality features and stormwater features being installed are addressing perhaps the most critical element of our comp plan, which is addressing the EPA's consent decree. So that would be my brief remarks and response. Happy to entertain any of your questions. Thank you. Ms. Rackers? I was going to say a couple of the things that Mr. Walborn said. One of the things being that we're not acting on the development plan. the development plan is is separate from this issue this is a an issue asking for compliance with the comprehensive plan as far as the entire the entire tiff area is concerned and it's any kind of infrastructure improvements that will help downstream problems whatever is in compliance with the comprehensive plan i mean that's supported by the comprehensive plan so So I don't know what else to say. Okay. Thank you. Questions from the commission? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plumlee? I have a question on page six. It said final development plans have been approved by the planning commission. Is that not where we are? Some of them have and some of them have. And as Ms. Rikers mentioned in her report, there have been different moving pieces of this. This has developed over time. so yeah that would be my response to that the vast majority have been approved I think there is one that is still pending Mr. Berkley I know they I know we're talking about stormwater today but I know they've talked about a passageway over the railroad to kind of in this area would that be something that they could apply I am not certain of that Mr. Walborn might be able to answer that we have investigated that i think it would technically be a tiff eligible expense that is not part of this proposal right i understand that any other questions once again we're here today just to determine if this is in compliance this does have other steps to go through um if there's no other yes sir i'll i'll uh make a motion that i think We're ready. The Planning Commission certify that it has reviewed the plan for compliance with the community's adopted comprehensive plan and finds it in compliance. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval finding that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. I need to move on to other commission items. Under B, adoption of 2000 meeting and filing schedule, you have it on a yellow sheet that is before you. Please take note of it, and if there's any questions, let it be known. I believe, Mr. Salee, any changes are in shaded areas? Yes, Mr. Chairman. We would note that under the fourth line, the staff has struck that late filings would be subject to triple fees. It's based on the new fee schedule. Also, you'll see later down in the major subdivision and development plans where it's gray-shaded, per the Planning Commission's discussions at your recent work session, that there being a new 48-hour deadline for submission of information prior to your meetings to the staff. That would be a new line that would appear on your meeting schedule. With the change to the filing fees, the staff just wonders if this may be the time for the commission to consider whether to continue with late filings or not. Certainly, we think that's something you ought to consider today. I think the staff's position is it may be time to do away with them, knowing that the Acela implementation next year may have the same effect. But we'll be glad to answer any questions you have about the meeting schedule. If you adopt the schedule as it is, it will keep the lay plans in effect as it has been for a number of years. Thank you. Or we can do away with it now. Yes, sir. You, sir. I believe there was some discussion in our work session over that. And from what Bill said with implementation of new software, I guess I would say, it sounds like they're going to be done away with anyway. So that's up to you all. Yes, ma'am? May I move now to do away with the late plans? If any other discussion? No other discussion? We can probably do it all in one fell swoop if you'd like to. You just said that it's going to be not needed because of the software. The software is going to be down the road. When down the road, did you think? We have been told by the consultant that it's expected to go live in the middle of 2016. Those on the staff that are working on the team think it may be more toward the beginning of the fourth quarter of next year. So we would estimate somewhere between July and September of 2016 is the estimated time. The way the Acela program will work is it's an automated filing system that will have component parts to all the filing materials that people generally bring to the planning office on a monthly basis. and it's one it will kind of back up the queue until all of the items are met and then it will progress down and be considered a filing again so that folks can go online and see the status of their application once all the filing materials have been made. By doing that there will not be a mechanism to bypass certain steps in that and that's why operationally there won't be the ability to have late filings once that goes live. Okay or as discussion is we can elect to do it as of January 2016. Other discussion? Mr. Chairman. Yes. I mean if that's going to take over when it's implemented I don't see any reason to change our procedure until that that new software comes in. That's up to us at this point. So that's the discussion. So Other discussion? If not, yes, sir? I would just say I agree with Mr. Cravens. Okay. We can, we may want to make that a separate motion. I want to ask a question of the staff. What kind of burden is this going to put on you all? Do you anticipate the implementation of the? Not the software, just the interim period. Oh, the interim period? If you leave the late filings in, there really won't be any change to the past procedure. If you do away with them, it will eliminate one whole filing cycle that the staff has to deal with every month. So it will simplify our work notably. There would still be continued discussion filings, re-approval and extension filings, but no late plan filings that generally go to your subdivision committee. So it will make the staff's life a little bit easier. Okay. So, yes, sir? Mr. Duncan. And, Mr. Chair, if I could add to that, because the council has already indicated through their policy of eliminating the late filing fee, or through their action of eliminating the late filing fee, essentially that they don't think late filings are an appropriate action. However, I guess that's still up to you to make that final decision. It does then sort of put on an unequal footing those who are filing late. For whatever disincentive there was to pay the triple filing fee, that's gone now. And so the late filers pay the same as the on-time filers, and yet the work still has to go on. Correct. So there's kind of two issues. The policy issue that's sort of been telegraphed by the council's action of eliminating the fee, and then the technical issue of the point that the Acela program takes over that this will no longer be possible. And as we've said, that's not tomorrow, and it may not be until this time next year. But nevertheless, that is coming. And so we've got those two issues ahead of us. And in the meantime, if we continue to enable the late filings without a filing fee penalty, then there will be no incentive at all to file on time. Yes, sir. Yes. Can't we keep the triple fees on there? No, sir. The council has set those fees, and they've already done that. Okay. Okay. With that, any other discussion? Yes, sir. I mean, I sit on the subdivision committee. it seems like when we do get late filed plans, often they have a number of conditions. They've not been worked through. They've not been the technical. I just don't want to put a bunch of work in that pipeline. I would agree personally. With that, Ms. Plumlee, I'll ask you to go with what you probably were headed towards, and we'll separate the motions first. As far as the late file, your wishes? I move to discontinue late files. Okay. The motion would be to discontinue the late filing opportunity. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the discontinuation or the opportunity for late filings. Any discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. So that part's been taken care of. Now for the meeting and filing schedule, I think Mr. Salley can adjust the notation on the late filing part. Absolutely. We will eliminate the third and fourth lines under number one on the schedule as a result of your vote. Okay. Very good. Any discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. I move approval of the revised draft and meeting and filing schedule for 2016. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the revised draft for the meeting and filing schedule of 2016. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next, under staff items, we have a text amendment initiation that is on, I guess you would say, a salmon sheet of paper before you. The exhibit should look like this. This is the exact item that we presented to you at your last work session. This is a proposed amendment to the land subdivision regulations, specifically Article 4-4D1. This is to make the allowable time, if you will, the life of a preliminary subdivision plan be increased from three years to five years. You may recall we've had a couple of combination plans that were both final development plans and preliminary subdivision plans that had different expiration dates for different components of those plans. We think it would be much easier for the community, certainly for the staff, and hopefully for the commission as well, to make those match at five years rather than have part of it for three, part of it for five. If you initiate this change, we will send out the notice and proceed to a public hearing probably either next month or early in next year. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Selle? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. That makes sense to me. I'm so moved. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the initiation of the Texas Amendment as stated to Article 4-4-D1. So please vote. Motion passes. Thank you. I believe that takes care of all the items on the agenda. Any other commission items? Staff items? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, just a reminder that there is no rest for the weary. We have a quick turnaround. You'll be back here on Thursday for the zoning hearing. Yes, sir. Thanks to the holidays. Audience items, I think everybody's gone. If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Second. Motion's been made in second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you.