Tools that were taught to me. And so that's what I did. I realized that my life is very valuable, not just to myself, but to somebody else. I wanted to stop. I knew I had to stop, but I couldn't stop. And I knew the only way I was going to stop was an intervention of some sort. And mine came in the form of the law. And when I went to jail, I finally took a deep breath because I knew it was over for me. I knew I could finally get help. I had battled addiction since I was 20 years old. And by the time I was 30 years old, I just came to that split in the road where it was either die or get on to living. And looking back, thank God I chose the right path. I'm engaged. I have my first child due in June, Christopher. I've already purchased nearly 2,000 diapers. That's what I've been investing money in. Not in the stock market, but in diapers. I'm just so excited to have an opportunity to have him in my life after everything I've been through. Truly blessed. that you can't force anyone to get help, you can't force anyone into treatment, but you can give your loved one good advice, and that's what I'd encourage the loved ones to do. The people that are going through these struggles, they want a way out, but they don't know how. They don't know how to receive the help that is offered to them. Have compassion. Try not to get so frustrated, and know that there is a solution to the problem. There is hope and there is light at the end of the tunnel. First you have to stop using. It's hard, but it is so rewarding. I smile now. The recovery process for me is like a second chance of life. and it's about hope. And if that's... Thank you. I will call this meeting to order. It is December 10, 2015. I'd like to welcome everyone here. We've got a somewhat lengthy agenda, and we will try and wade through it here. There are no minutes for approval, so we will move on to any postponements and or withdrawals from today's agenda. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Wine Garden Realty. On page six of your agenda, I'd like to request a one-week postponement for DP 2015-99 Willow Oak Shopping Center, the Mill Pond Shopping Center. I guess you do know next week's going to be fun. It is going to be fun, and I'm the cause of a lot of that fun. Okay. Anyone else, anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? The request is for December the 17th. Any commission members want to speak to this request? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chairman, move postponement for one week to 1217 of DP 2015-99 Willow Oak Shopping Center. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for a one-week postponement of DP 2015-99. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Others? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Fred Eastridge with ECSI. On page 5 of your agenda, Item F, Plan 2015-137F, Boonesboro Manor Subdivision Unit 1, amended. I'd like to ask for a one-month postponement on that. We are in the process of getting our information in front of the Urban County Council for the acceptance of the private street. okay january the 14th yes okay thank you mr eastridge anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request commission members if not i'll entertain a motion yes sir mr chairman i'd like to move for a postponement one month postponement of plan 2015-137f boonesboro manor subdivision unit one amended thank you do we have a second seconded by mr. Richardson for a one-week post-ponement plan 2015-137 please vote one month one month yes I'm sorry one month January 14th that motion passes thank you mr. Eastridge others yes ma'am hi Erica Strecker page 8 of your agenda item F we'd like to ask for a one-week postponement until December 17th as well. That would be for the Preston addition subdivision? Correct. Yes. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move postponement of DP 2015-116, Preston addition subdivision, until 12-17. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for a one-week postponement, DP 2015-116, precedent edition. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Others? Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm going to postpone a lot of them. We'll shorten your day. On the first page, first item, plan 2006-250P, Hillenmeyer Property Unit 1, request a one-week postponement to December 17th. There's also two other plans associated all with this same general property. Would you like to hear them all three at once? Go right ahead. Next item on page 2, it's plan 2012-99P Hillen-Mire Property Unit 2. Next item after that is plan 2012-100P SFH property. All of these we'd like to request a one-week postponement. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to the request of any one of these three? Commission members? If not, the request is for postponement of the first three items on the agenda. I'll take one motion if you're willing. Mr. Chairman, I move, reluctantly move to postpone for one week, plan 2006-2,250p, plan 2012-99p, and plan 2012-100p for one week to the December 17th meeting. Thank you. And the motion was seconded. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up. That motion passes. Yes, sir. Top of page three, item D, Tuscany 2012-102P. This is Tuscany units two and three. Request a one-month postponement to January 14th. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of Plan 2012-102P for one month. Thank you. Motion is seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Yes, sir. You're still standing. I'm still here. Page 4, item D, Plan 2015-135F Bogey Estate Lot 2. request a one-month postponement to January 14th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, move postponement of Plan 2015-135F Bogic State, Lot 2, until January the 14th. Second. Motion to make and second it for a one-month postponement. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. You're done? I'm done. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Jacob Walburn appearing on behalf of MIA Brookhaven. I would turn your attention to page 8, item D on your agenda, Brookhaven subdivision, DP 2015-114. 114. We're asking for a one-month postponement. We had a fairly substantial revision of the plan submitted to the staff today. Very good. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for a one-month postponement. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose a one-month postponement postponement for DP 2015-114 Brookhaven subdivision. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for a one-month postponement for DP 2015-114. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Others? Staff, do you have anything? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I may direct the Planning Commission's attention to page 7. Item B, DP 2015-100, Interchange Service Center, Lot 4. Staff did receive an email communication from the applicant indicating a desire for a one-month postponement on that plan. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. That would be January 14, 2016. Ms. Mundy? Mr. Chair, I move for one month postponement for DP 2015-100 Interchange Service Center, and that would be to January 14, 2016. We have a second by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Staff, do you have others? Nothing else? Anyone in the audience wish to speak? Ask for postponement. Please come forward. On page 5, Plan 2015-139F Ellerslie Place was recommended for postponement. we're part of the neighborhood that backs up to that and we're hoping to have a postponement until the january 14th meeting the developer has agreed to produce as-built information on that drawing it's a drainage issue and we're expecting to receive that as-built information later next week and postponing it till the 17th wouldn't give us enough time and i'm sorry your name is? Sorry, it's Jim Griggs. Okay. And I'm with my neighbor on Boonesboro Avenue. Mr. Griggs, being a neighbor and you mentioned conversation with the applicant, is the applicant here? Are you speaking for the applicant? No, absolutely not. Just for as a neighbor? Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I think the staff had received an email from the applicant requesting a one-week postponement. Okay. But obviously they're not here. They're not here. And it sounds like there's information trying to be provided to the neighbors as well. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not? How do you? We already postponed it. One week. No, wait a second now. This would be for Ellis Lear Place. The staff's recommended postponement. Okay. So, yeah. This is page five, item H, plan 2015-139 L, Ellis Lear Place. So, Mr. Penn. We've got, you know, an applicant apparently asked for one week. If an applicant asked for one week and the neighborhood asked for a month, that puts us in a quandary. We've got until January 31, 2016 to be able to act on this. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. Could the staff respond to how they feel about a one-month postponement or a week postponement? Mr. Saleh. I think the staff is agreeable to either one. There was considerable discussion at your subdivision committee on this plan last week. That discussion had to be at least a half an hour, maybe 40, 45 minutes. Mr. Martin, correct me, we've not received any revised information in the last week? Okay. So, honestly, I don't know if it will be revised next week or not. Okay. Mr. Penn? Mr. Chairman, I think in view of where we are and having chaired this subdivision committee, I think we're going to have to ask for a one-month postponement because I think all you're going to do next week is postpone it again. So I just don't think we're ready to hear it. Motion's been made and seconded for a one-month postponement of Plan 2015-139F, Ellis Lear Place. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And let me draw your attention also to page 9. There's a minor development plan, DP 2015-94, Elishler Place, that I think we could act on as well. Mr. Selle. Mr. Chairman, this involves the exact same property. The staff would suggest a postponement to the same meeting date, January 14th. It's possible that the plan could be resolved between now and then since it is a minor plan, but it would make sense, at least in my mind, to keep them on the same meeting agenda. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would speak to this request? Commission? You're in turn to motion. Yes, ma'am? Mr. Chair, move postponement until January the 14th for DP 2015-94, Elderly Place. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made in second for one month postponement. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, we'll move in order of the agenda. Returning to page 3. I believe we're on now. It's a final subdivision plan, 2A, plan 2015-106F, Distillery District West, Unit 1. You do have a revision that is before you on a purple sheet, and there's also a waiver request that is before you on a white sheet. Oh, I'm sorry. Let's get that out of the way. Thank you. We do have a consent agenda. Mr. Saleh, would you like to? Chairman, thank you very much, members of the commission. Good afternoon. It is very short, but yes, we do have a consent agenda for you this afternoon. It has several subdivision and development plans on it. The first appearing on your meeting agenda on page 5, item G, plan 2015-138F, an amended final record plat for the Zandell Shopping Center, lots 2 and 4. This plat involves property with an address of 2220 and 2230 Nicholasville Road. The item on page 6, item I of your meeting agenda is also on this consent agenda. This is a final subdivision plan recommended for re-approval by your planning staff. It is Plan 2014-52F, Grasmere Subdivision Unit 5. This involves property with an address of 916 Bribington Way. There are three development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that appear on the consent agenda. The first is on page 6, item C, DP 2015-113, the Distillery District West, Unit 1, an amended final development plan for property with an address of 1151 and 1158 through 1225 Manchester Street. Mr. Chairman, you'll note on this consent agenda, this plan requires the posting of a sign and affidavit of such. The affidavit was presented to staff but has not been returned to the staff. We'll need to review this affidavit before you take action on this plan. There are two other development plans on your consent agenda. page 8, item E, DP 2015-115, Gibson Park Subdivision, involving property with an address of 1201 South Broadway and 402, 406, and 408 Pike Road. The final item on your consent agenda is on page 9, item G of your meeting agenda, DP 2015-117, Big Run Industrial Park, also known as SCW Stone Road, LLC, involving property with an address of 550 through 560 Stone Road. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the Commission's indulgence just a moment while I check the affidavit, then we'll advise you whether to proceed or not. Yes, sir. The date of the sign was at question on the affidavit. We do have photographs of the sign that was posted on this item, So it is eligible for consideration in your consent agenda. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience wish to remove any one of these items from the consent agenda and have it heard? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read. Yes, sir? Mr. Chairman, move approval of the consent agenda as read. Second. Motion has been made in second and fourth. Approval of the Senate agenda is read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Now, return to the agenda. Page 3, item 2A, plan 2015-106F, Distillery District West, Unit 1. As mentioned, there is a revision on a purple sheet before you and also a waiver request for you as well. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item to be heard on your agenda is on page 3. It is Plan 2015-106F, Distillery District West, Unit 1. this is a proposed final record plat to create three lots along manchester street at this location across from it would be the pepper distillery property that you're very familiar with this is actually a part of that development plan this little area right up in here is actually included on the development plan. The handout that you were just given demonstrates that portion of the development plan that does govern this property, by the way. And this location is the rail line. This shows you that there is, of course, floodplain associated with Town Branch in this area of our community. They are proposing the creation of Lot 1 in this location, a little over 0.6 acres, 0.2 acres in this location. And here, Lot 3 is just 0.45 acres being proposed to be created in this location. We have handed out revised conditions to you. The central issue to this record plat is rather simple and straightforward, and that is you can see that we have standard sign-offs for record plat. We have kind of standard conditions that would apply to final record plats under our regulations. however the key here is the waiver request and again you should have a copy of the waiver request the lot in question and again that's one reason we handed out that for you to look at see the development plan and the two buildings that do exist on the property they would be here and here on Lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 is the subject of your waiver request. Lot 3's got no public sewer, and that is the waiver request. They want to create this lot without providing the required public sewer. Now, you may recall and be aware that we had a waiver and an issue across the street with sewers. They had to build their own system. Hands. And the exhibit that we're placing up for you to take a look at there shows the sewer system in the area of Manchester Street. It's hard to see. There we go. In essence, what that demonstrates is that this lot to be sewered needs to run over here to lot one and hook up with an existing trunk line. If you look at the exhibit at 1151, the number 1151, which is under the green spot on the map, which is offsite up here. Yes, thank you. All right, go to 1151, the number. Now, to the left, you see the two? Yes, those are the manholes. That is the location of where this applicant could provide sewer to lot three. He would have to cross the lot to get there. The staff has reviewed it. We've reviewed it with engineering, and we're recommending disapproval of the waiver. Staff does not believe that the applicant has justified a waiver in this regard to create a lot, a lot with no known user, no known proposed development other than what you see on the development plan. And, of course, that shows buildings on the other two lots. those lots do have sewer so again it's just an issue of lot number three that they're requesting to create without the provision of public sewer staff could see no justification that this is any hardship nor without a proposed user without proposed development on the property any reason that it was relevant to infill and redevelopment, again, on the property. As you know, staff's been concerned with the sewer situation in that area. So, again, I would state that the key is very simply the request for a waiver to the creation of these lots. They could maintain the two lots. They could create the two lots. No problem. No need for a waiver. But it is lot number three that is the issue for the staff. And again, as I stated, we discussed this with engineering, and no one on staff could find any reason to support this particular waiver in this instance. So we are recommending disapproval of the waiver. We are. I don't want to confuse you. The plan can be approved. However, if you don't approve the waiver, they will need to follow standard procedures. They need to build a sewer line, put it in the ground, follow our normal procedures, have the plat recorded. And they could do that and create this lot. And then they could transfer the lot, do whatever they deem necessary with the lot. Now, staff is aware, and the applicant's going to talk to you about this. There have been some negotiations with staff, with city staff, government staff, about the trail system in this area. This property has been targeted for possible use within that trail system. But that may be several years down the road. It's also subject to the availability of funding. So although we believe that is certainly something that could impact the development of the property, we don't believe it's relevant to the land subdivision regulations and to the requirement that public sewer be provided when a lot is created. With that, I will add just very briefly, we are recommending dedication of some right-of-way along the frontage of that lot to the approval of the Division of Traffic Engineering and KDOT just to ensure that there's appropriate right-of-way for public improvements in the future. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Questions? Mr. Martin, so if we approve this plan, they can go ahead and have two lots but not three? They could have all three if they will build the sewer. Yeah. Yes, sir. Right. They could have two. Yeah. Yes. Okay. All right. Or they could come back at a later time and resolve the issue as far as the sewer? Yes, sir. They could. All right. Any other questions? Applicant? Good afternoon. Justin Drury with 2020 Land Surveying. This is Mr. Pendry. He's the property owner. We wanted to have this plan here today just to make two key points specifically about the waiver. One, of course, Tom mentioned that there is precedent across the street for the granting of a waiver for a similar situation when they developed those lots just within the last couple of years. And two, also, as Tom mentioned, the purpose of this lot is to put one new building that would be a woodworking type building with the town branch trail that is in negotiation that's coming through here. the design of that building and where it would sit and the development of that lot is still in flux with that system coming through there so we were asking to be able to go ahead and subdivide these lots up before we had completion of the actual sewer itself and that would be you know why we applied for the waiver and if that's that was the two points we would like to make if you had any questions for mr pendry too we could probably talk to the proposed development of that lot a little bit a little bit more any questions questions for mr drury or mr mchenry mr pen are you asking on that waiver for a temporary waiver in order to get the two lots are you asking for a permanent waiver on lot three It's a waiver for substantial completion of the sewer prior to approving the subdivision of lots. Basically like we did on the properties across the street where we allowed to create the lots at that time was for transferring the lots prior to having the sanitary system in place. So let me follow up. So you're telling me that you have a substantial hardship? by not doing Lot 3, you want to waver based on the fact of what? The fact that the design, the inflammation of the sewer system prior to knowing exactly how this lot is going to be developed as far as the building and the trail system that's proposed to be coming through there. Okay, thank you. Other questions? You want to say something? Yeah. Yes. That's another piece to that, and that is that the reason it's being divided is my son and I have a purchase agreement. We've got an agreement where he's purchasing the second two lots from me. And part of what we're trying to determine is whether we don't know where this is. This was all done prior to us being notified about the Town Branch Trail. Since then, we've been in negotiations with them and discussions with them about how much of this property they need. So we don't know where the building's going to go. We know it's going to go in the back. We've talked with and we've provided a document from Davis and Plone Mechanical. They tell us they can build the sewer for us. But without knowing exactly where the building's going to go, it's difficult to put the sewer in now. because we don't know where the building's going to go. And then secondly, we're in an awkward position because I've got an agreement with my son to purchase these, and now the town branch says they're going to buy it from us. I would really like that property to be split so that they're negotiating with him on his property and me on my property versus a negotiation to buy it all. And then we as a family have to decide how we're going to divvy that up, And I'd rather not have to do that with my son. I'd rather the negotiation take place with him in the state and me in the state or city or whomever is going to buy it. So we're in a little bit of a catch-22, and I'd like to get the property pushed over into his name because we've got an agreement to buy it. And I don't know what the value is going to be and how they replace values and how much they want. It just makes it easier if it's in his name versus mine. We certainly don't want – we're not going to build a building enough and can't put a sewer in. we're convinced we can put a sewer in it based upon the mechanical contractor's opinion. So that's the only thing I wanted to make sure was that. And we've provided the staff with the letter that the plumber provided us about the feasibility of creating that sewer connection. Other questions? Mr. Martin, you got something you'd like to add? Yes, sir. I want to make something very clear about the waiver across the street. You may recall they built a private sewer system across the street with a pump station and all that. That was the basis for granting that waiver. It's because they did sewer those property. They sewered them privately. We would point out that if they wish to amend their development plan and show development on this property for Lot 3, then that would be an appropriate way to proceed forward and determine the need for sewer and when it would go in. As is, it'll be a vacant lot that could be transferred to other people, things done with. The second thing, they did provide us with a letter from a plumber. This line is going to have to be engineered. We're talking public sewer. We're talking the need to have an engineer design it and oversee the construction and installation of the sewer. This is not a lateral that some plumber can just put in the ground for you. Okay, so that's another issue. And if you can see, we highlighted that on 16. We said discuss certifications, and that's, again, contingent upon the waiver. If you grant the waiver, they're going to be able to create the lot. If you don't grant the waiver and they build the sewer, they're going to need an engineer stamp on the plan. Okay, they're going to need an engineer to design that public sewer, because that's what we're talking about here. So that's the basis for staff's recommendation on the way. Tom, how long is this sewer? Pardon me? How long is this? How many feet? How many feet? I'd have to put a scale on it, but it's several hundred. Where's the third lot on this thing here? Okay, well, it's on this corner up in here that you can see where a little bit of the parking lot. depending on where they place the building they're going to have to get over in here in this location and um you know it's this is a 50 foot scale but we blew it up so 100 feet a couple hundred feet they're going to have to run it 100 that's pretty close yeah yeah well just run it i mean just run it up the street and put it at the corner of that lot one of the issues that that faces them we've got two trunk lines in the area. One is appropriate to be hooked into. The other one is large and serves a huge area of our community and is not one that they would be allowed to tap into. Oh. Can I add? Yes, sir. I want to be careful. It's being portrayed that we got a letter from a plumber. the letters from Davis and Plum and Mechanical Contractor for example they did the mechanical work they have engineers on staff they did mechanical work for the Commonwealth Stadium you know it's not just the plumber that just came off the back of the street it's a very legitimate organization that builds all the high schools around town so I don't want to be portrayed as we're going to dig a little ditch John Plum knows what he's doing in this regard I don't think anyone's meaning to put the plumber. Right, no, and that's fine. Competence in question. It made it sound like we didn't. Yeah. The point is this is a plat under our land subdivision regulations, and if they are required to put in public sewer, an engineer is going to have to stamp this plat. He's going to have to certify that it was designed to his standards, whoever that may be, whether it's this mechanical company or someone else. Mr. Drake? You alluded a while ago to transactions between yourself and your son. I'm confused just a little bit, and all of that's related to the negotiations with the town branch trail. does the subdivision of this property now affect those negotiations and the value you may receive or not receive in some kind of transaction? The only point I was making was I've got right now a contract with my son pending this being approved, and it's being sold down. I owe him money, and that's the way this thing is. We had other property, and we're transferring. that don't serve that to this. We've got an agreement in place. The concern I have is that, and that was done before we were notified that the town branch trail was going to come through here. So now I'm a little bit worried that if we don't split the property up now, that that negotiation with the city or the state or whoever buys it, it's going to be one plot of land. And so therefore of the dollars that are going to be split, how do I give, what percentage do I give my son, what thing do I take? That's a, I'd rather have that negotiation with the state and my son versus me and my son. It just, it's a, it prevents an awkward situation that I'll have to, that's what I'm trying to avoid. That's an aside, by the way. He wants to build a woodworking shop on this corner, so we want that to go forward as well. Which would also require an amended development plan. It didn't have that building. I can't see the whole plot here from here. But what I'm understanding is where you would tie into the sewer is on the other property. Is that correct? The existing sewer sits. It runs this way. You can see the building. that sits right in front of the east side of that building. Oh, I'm sorry. That's correct. The existing sewer, there's a trunk line that runs along parallel with the railroad just about. We had discussions with engineering about tying into that. It's too big and it runs too fast. said that that's not you couldn't tap into that but there is another line that runs this way uh just what just east of the of the larger building on lot one so the connection will be made across lot one through the existing uh parking and access easement and tie into a manhole that that sits right about in here that's my question is that easement on there Not right now, no. Well, I mean, I can see a situation here. I mean, if his son sells that property and the next guy doesn't want to allow an easement, how are you going to sewer the lot? That would, would that come up in the development or certification of permitting the building? itself. Again, this points to our concerns about not providing public sewer to this lot in a timely fashion in an appropriate time because there are some unknown factors, things that could complicate it, things that could be imposed on the next owner, whether inadvertently, but it still could. Yeah. I mean, again, staff evaluated this with engineering and water quality, and our recommendation stands on them. Mr. Drury, let me ask you this real quick before we get too far down the creek. The revisions, the rest of the revisions that's been made, are you okay with them? Yes, yeah, I've reviewed those. Everything else on there is fine. Okay. Question, Mr. Penn? yes i i feel like mr berkeley but i think when you you brought your son into this thing talked about the two versus the three pieces of property if you have the opportunity at this point to attach that sewer just to the edge of three where it's available for three you're in a situation down here where capacity doesn't have to always be there and so you need to do whatever you can do to protect the value of that lot. And by not running that sewer, you're not protecting the value of that lot. So that's why I have a little problem with your scenario, because I don't see why you wouldn't want access to that lot, regardless of what you do with it, because of the value of the lot. And so I just don't understand what the value is in not putting that sewer at least to the edge of that lot. I just don't understand that. Can I respond to that? Yes, sir. I agree with that, and I'm more than willing to put the sewer in. What I don't want to do is put the sewer there, and then I don't get approval for the development. So it's kind of a catch-22, which one comes first. And then the second issue is I'm spending money on something I'm fearful that the state or whoever is going to buy this is going to buy it. I'm going to spend the money to put that in. Then I'm not going to be able to build a building, period, because Town Branch is going to buy it. So it's a little bit of do I keep investing money because I now am notified that the city may want to buy it for the town branch. So do I continue to invest money in it? That's part of the issue. No, I'm trying to develop it this way. So I understand your point. I mean, I agree that if I knew that I could get this all done prior to the property being condemned for the town branch, I'll be glad to put the sewer in and run it to the edge. So you think that's going to be a condemnation proceeding to get that land? That's my—I don't know what the process is. They have told me that it will be—I'm not sure. I shouldn't say condemnation. I'm not sure how the process works. In other words, I won't get a choice. It's not like I don't think it's a negotiation that I can say, I know I don't want to sell it to you. I don't have any idea, but all we can deal with is what we see today. I'm sorry? All we can deal with is what? All we can deal with is what we see today. No, I see. I realize. And so our job is to look forward in this thing and what's the best thing to do as far as surability. And I can tell you surability in that area is a challenge. Across the street, wherever it is, for the reasons that you all just laid out. Yeah. you know any other questions just one other comment with your scenario there I can tell you from experience you don't want your your lot to be appraised as if it doesn't have sewer for your valuation for the acquisition so let me ask this anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan before we move on otherwise you know any other any other questions from the commission mr martin do you have anything else no okay um i think we've probably heard enough uh i'll close this part of hearing and open it up for any discussion among commission members and or motion so mr chairman yes sir this this revised staff that uh recommended approval of that right yes okay the revised recommendations i'm with approval approval of the revised staff for plan 2015-106f okay motion's been made for approval of the revised staff recommendations of Plan 2015-106F. Any questions? With the 14 revised conditions, yes. Motion's been made and seconded. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes, and then we do need a motion on the waiver. I'm going to move disapproval of the waiver based on what we've heard today. Second. motion made and seconded for disapproval of staff recognition yes disapproval of waiver associated plan 2015-106-f for the reasons provided by the staff please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you folks sorry about Thank you. Thank you. We can move to the bottom of the page. It's plan 2015-122F local enterprises amended. We have, it continues on page four of your agenda. People are while staff setting up. Mr. Cravens. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of release and call of bonds. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of release and call of bonds from memo dated December 10th, 2015. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. members of the commission. This is plan 2015-122F, an amended final record plat for local enterprises for property located at 4595 Tates Creek Road. This property is located off of South Point. South Point would be up in this direction. Here's Lauderdale Drive. And it's right on the county line. Across here is Jessamine County. And it is west of Tates Creek Road. The commission had postponed this plan at, you may recall, the November 12, 2015 meeting. the purpose of this amendment to the plan is to subdivide one lot into 24 buildable lots, consolidate parcel one with lot two here, the consolidation, and depict drainage and detention easement across these parcels. Your subdivision committee had recommended postponement due to some questions regarding a lack of access to proposed lot to here from the public way on Lauderdale I should the plan be approved following requirements need to be considered the standard sign-off conditions that is conditions 1 through 7 and in number 8 remove the urban service area landscape buffer easement five feet from the public right-of-way, which is down here. Number nine, identify the access from the public street to lot two for Fayette County sanitation providers and emergency responders, that is the access from lot two over to Lauderdale. How does that access occur? I believe Mr. Martin will want to address that here momentarily. number 10 revised submitted 30 report to include the status of public street sidewalk design construction which incidentally we have received from the applicant so condition 10 has been taken care of last of all 11 identify a potential sinkhole identified on the approved preliminary subdivision plan and that would be over on lot two so we'll take your comments and questions at this time. Questions? So, I guess real quick, with what you just said in regards to number 10, are you saying that can now go away? Yes, sir. Okay. Yeah, that has been completed. Okay. That report was submitted. That revision for addendum was submitted. All right. Any other questions? Yes. Is there need to capacity assurance on this one? No, ma'am. Not at this particular point in time. Being a subdivision plat and its consolidation and depiction of the easement, creation of these buildable lots at this time, that would be a condition for the residential lotting there. Other questions? If not, applicant, Mr. Martin, you got something to add? Yes, sir. Very quickly. As several of you are aware who have been in the committee discussions about this, this is a very interesting little piece of property right here along the border. As you're aware, this is a wall when it comes to jurisdiction. So staff's concern all along has been access to this lot because there is a detention drainage facility on this lot. It serves primarily a development in Jesmond County. There is an interlocal agreement that requires all development in Jesmond County in this area to meet our engineering manual requirements. And that generated a lot of discussion, a lot of give and take, several meetings. and we investigated what could be done and how access would be obtained. The subdivision regulations allow utility easements to be utilized for sanitary sewer and for streetlights. They specifically do not include drainage, stormwater. They are subject to their own easement, less so labeled. It took a little bit of determination to know that having a stormwater easement allows access as well for our personnel in order to inspect the basin, ensure that it's being maintained, and grant access to it. And it just so happens in the plat that you see with the highlighted homeowner's lot, that lot actually is in its entirety a stormwater easement. So access through that easement on the homeowner's lot, homeowner's association lot, is possible. So that's how that has been resolved. And it took us all a little while to get there, but everyone is now satisfied that that particular concern has been addressed. Any questions? If not, thank you, sir. Just in closing, we can delete condition number nine, and the staff can recommend an approval of the plat with the other remaining conditions, nine and ten. We can delete nine and ten now. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Applicant, we're making it easier for you. Thank you. I need it. Rory Kaley with the EA Partners. We are in agreement with the remaining nine conditions and request approval. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kaley? No. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Yes, sir. My name is Tim Haymaker. I'm the developer of Pinnacle Development 2. And this was a little surprise to me. I didn't know this was going on. I built those lots, I think, that you see up there. I built those. in Pinnacle Development II. And I built and paid for the OPSS line out there, $550,000. I've had an extremely difficult time collecting the OPSS fees. Now that I see this and I see more sewer that appears to be going into the OPSS, it seems only appropriate that this should be noted that I'm to be paid OPSS fees. Again, I have no problem with the development other than I would like to collect my OPSS fees that I've paid for to this date 10 years ago. I'm not even collecting interest anymore. So thank you. You have a question for me? Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. I guess my first question would be, what would the OPSS fees be? And is it within our jurisdiction for anything? Generally, that sort of thing is handled with engineering sign-off. I think that if there are OPSS requirements, I think we can handle that through the normal sign-off process. Okay. Mr. Penn, you're reaching. Yeah, I'm more than reaching. I'm struggling here. That's not a development plan issue, is it? I mean, that's not something you put on a development plan, is it? I mean, I'm leading your question here, but I'm in uncharted waters. Actually, OPSS is not all unusual. We have it in other areas of the county, and it's handled by a note. It is, and that comes about generally through the sign-off process when it's been identified that there are OPSS fees required. So Mr. Haymaker is asking us to put a note on the development plan. And this is a subdivision plan. Hold on, a subdivision plan. But a note can go on there. And I think, again, I think that could be handled through our normal sign-off review through engineering and even water quality if necessary. So what do we as a planning commission need to do to make that happen? Well, I think you've made note of it. But again, I think engineering through their sign-off can investigate the status of the OPSS fees and indicate that they're required. Because that's what we do, and that's what we've done in other areas. Mr. Haymaker, I'm on a need-to-know basis, and I needed to know. Mr. Wilson, question? I'm caught up in the verbiage a little bit. He was also indicating, Mr. Haymaker, said that he hadn't collected back fees. He hadn't been paid for the previous fee. I mean, we don't have anything. Yeah, I mean, just. There was a parcel in the Mahan development, and it required litigation, and I didn't collect on it. And I can tell you, I pay every time there's an OPSS fee. I pay it. And I've paid it at the Coventry Development or Belmont, what you call it. We pay at the Madden property. We have never not paid our development, our OPSS fees. And I got left out. And so I'm just saying I'd like to come to the table and ask for some help so that I don't have to fight this again. I mean, really, this is $550,000 of real money that's been spent, and I'm not collecting back. Well, I guess what I'm confused about, then, what does the—okay, go ahead. I think I have an answer. Okay. I want to double-check with Hillard how those fees, if they are due, will have to be collected prior to recording of any plats. So the fees will be collected before any plats get recorded and therefore any property transferred. And I believe that will be our responsibility to see that they're collected. Oh, that. If I can clarify, not the Division of Planning. No, no, I mean the city. Thank you. Hillard Newman personally is good. Well, I think Mr. Martin, that answers my question in terms of going forward. But as I understand it, he hasn't been paid for the previous things. Is there any? That can have a bearing, yes, sir, on whether or not the plats get recorded. Mr. Martin, let me ask you this. You know, it sounds like Mr. Haymaker is asking us for some help, and it sounded like I think you may have indicated that we could have a condition on here. Oh, if you like. Clarify, verify, collection of OBSSVs. We could place a note on there, but, again, that's standard. If they're due, that is standard procedure. Yes, sir. I mean, that's good. So if I could add just one more thing, because this has been a really tenuous situation out there. When all the division of water quality and all these things started getting formed and there were agreements between Jasmine County and Fayette County, there was my understanding through Hillard and the process that they would have to pay me coming out of Jasmine County because they paid nothing towards the OPSS fee. I received a call from an attorney five years ago in Jasmine County. I think his name is Bill Smith, I believe is his name. And he said at the time, I have collected money for you from a Jasmine County piece of Brandon Crossing or whatever that all is. And I have spoken to Hillard several times about it, and I have no answer. I get no answer. That's why I ask you for protection. Thank you. Well, is the issue here collection of the fees or reimbursement of prepaid fees? It's kind of both. I've already spent the money, and I get reimbursed for my money. But it's a process that's normal. I mean, it's a normal process in development where the city doesn't put the money in and I need to get it or somebody else needs to get a trunk line from A to B. And so they make the citizen pay and you get to collect interest for 10 years. And at the end of 10 years, it stops. But the but the lien stays there forever. And I can only look to engineering to collect the fees. That's the way it's always supposed to have worked, is I look to engineering to collect the fees. So when this came up quite suddenly today, I thought maybe this is my chance to get some protection. I just want somebody to note it, that you're supposed to get paid. So that's all. I didn't mean to create a problem here. I'm sorry. Ms. Jones, can we add to this? I think I have a recommendation. We could place a condition on this plat that says resolve the status of uncollected OPSS fees prior to recordation. Because anything that needs to be collected will be collected prior to recordation. And this way, we'll look into and find out what the status is of anything that needs to have been paid or has been collected and not paid prior to recording the plat. And that will certainly, certainly give us a mechanism to address that issue. And shouldn't you say once it's collected, it's paid out to the person it's owed to? Well, I mean, you got it. You got it. There's intricacies. I mean, I know we collect and it does get paid to the people that it's supposed to be paid to. I mean, that is Jones. I think that will be OK. I mean, if it says resolve, I'm assuming you're going to resolve it correctly as our procedures require. But that being said, I mean, that's just going to be what all you can do because the rest of it falls under the procedures with engineering and the division water. Okay. All right. Anyone else in the audience want to speak on this plan? Anything else, commission members? Mr. Chairman, we'll try and put this on the overhead for you. okay i think everyone understands this starts on page four and continues to uh page five mr kaylee you got anything well i'm in a really bad spot here status of ops s fees prior to recordation and then change 11 to 10. I think that works. It stuck between two developers, who are my clients. Yeah, I know. I guess the fair and honest thing here is to make sure that number nine is speaking to the plat at hand and not something off this plat. Mr. Chairman, I think that is correct. Okay. I think that's correct. It only affects this plan. The other issue may still be an issue, but I think it's beyond the scope of this plan. So Mr. Cayley has agreed with this. So we do have the original number 9 and 10 going away. and the looks like we've got a substitution for number nine and we've still got number 11, which will be now number 10 to include. Questions? If not, anything to add? I have recommendations for approval. Thank you, sir. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2015-122F with the 10 conditions, changing number 9 or number 10, however you want to do it, to resolve the issue of the OBS fees the way Mr. Salley put it on the board. That record recording of plan. Okay, motion's been made and seconded for approval with now the revised 10 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. That's page three. Moving on to page four, we have item C, plan 2015-126F, Eastern State Hospital. We do have revised staff recommendations on a pink sheet that is before you. Is the applicant here? No, sir. No. Okay. Might be short. Yes, sir. I will. Very quickly, this is a plat that was submitted that proposes to create a lot here, and actually this is a lot. You can also see it's called Future Road. It fronts on Loudoun Avenue, CSX Railroad. We have, of course, Lexmark in this location, Board of Health, and the Hope Center in these areas. The applicant had requested a postponement on behalf of the client, which is Lexmark, for some things that were apparently being worked on. We had consultations before it was ever submitted on how to approach this, what to do. Very simply, we've had no further communication with the applicant's engineer on these issues, other than to state that they were ready to move it forward. This same applicant communicated with staff earlier today for a postponement on another plan on this agenda, but did not communicate with staff in this particular case. The plan, unfortunately, can only be postponed until next week. Otherwise, you will not have a meeting in time to act on this plan within your guidelines for operation for when you can and cannot postpone on your own action. Therefore, staff has prepared revised conditions. These revised conditions were disapproval because this plan does not meet the requirements of the land subdivision regulations. There is no preliminary subdivision plan that is required in order to build streets. And without that, that also puts the plan in a position where it does not comply with Articles 5-4 or 6-8 of your land subdivision regulations. It is not an approvable plan. Again, the applicant is not here, so you have that one option. You could postpone it for one week, and hopefully we get the applicant in here to address concerns. Otherwise, staff really has no choice but to recommend disapproval of this particular plan. What sort of communication have you, conversations have you had with the applicant over the past several weeks? I initially met with the applicant and explained the process on this plat because it's somewhat, there's a couple of steps that were necessary beforehand, and I'm not going to get into the details, but the applicant indicated an understanding. This plat was then submitted as you see it. We have communicated with the applicant's engineer on this issue. I literally met with the applicant briefly and stated to the applicant's engineer there are concerns with the postponement that need to be addressed. It's not as simple as stating, I'd like, you know, the client would like to move forward. You know, it was explained. There are concerns that have not been addressed that, unfortunately, postponement morphed into disapproval because it does not meet your land subdivision regulations. Mr. Berkeley, you had a question. You're okay. Mr. Drake? Who actually is the applicant? Lex Martin. If we disapprove, what position does that put them in? they would have to resubmit a new plan, which they can do. They can turn right around and submit a new plan. Yeah. Anytime. Yeah, anytime at the next submittal date. In other words. Another one. Yes. No. Okay. I presume there's no one in the audience that wants to speak on this. Mr. Penn, I think we're ready to move on. plan 2015-126f I recommend we support the staff's recommendation for disapproval for the reasons given thank you motion has been made and seconded for supporting the staff's recommendation of approval any questions if not please vote when he comes up on the screen That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Moving down to the bottom of the page, item E, plan 2015-136F, Tuscany, unit 10. It continues on to page 5 with 14 conditions. This is Plan 2015-136F, final record plat for Tuscany, Unit 10 at Meeting Street for property located at 2625 Sir Barton Way. This property is located on Winchester Road and Patch and Wilkes. This is going to be on the Hamburg side of Winchester Road. After review, your subdivision committee has recommended approval subject to the standard conditions down through number eight. Condition number nine addition of lot two as part of this plan lot two being this highlighted area here number 10 delete the words right of way from meeting street label number 11 incorporate the notes from preliminary subdivision plan regarding the planned multi-use trail which runs along lot two here spurs out that way number 12 denote the proposed uses on lot 2 again per the PSP which would involve presumably residential uses at this end and number 13 resolve the bike and pedestrian facilities previously discussed by the Planning Commission for meeting Street and that is generally speaking the lane configuration whether or not to place the bike lane in the street or to utilize the multi-use trail and the attendant striping and and so forth it would be required that's topic still open finally 14 discuss the access to the multi-use trail running down on lot two here along meeting street so with that we'll take your questions and comments Any questions? No? Okay. Thank you, applicant. Again, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. The condition number nine, the addition of lot two, is the only condition we have in question. We'd like to omit that. Plot 2, as he highlighted there for you, is still part of the Tuscany Farm property, several hundred acres yet to be included or yet to be developed. Meeting Street, as shown here, is just for the right-of-way, just the plat to get the street open, dedicated. it will connect you from the patch and Wilkes Drive area went Road Winchester around the school site and over to Sir Barton that was one of the requirements of the high school being located here a lot to does not have an approved preliminary subdivision plan we don't have approved development plan for that yet showing any sort of development so we do not want to include that creating a lot that Mr. Haymaker is not ready to purchase from the owner and to develop. So we do not want to create that lot until we have a use approved for it. The previous preliminary subdivision plan that did show the schools, 65 acres, and Meeting Street asked for something to be shown on lot two. At that time, there are notes on the preliminary subdivision plan that states that it will be developed under residential uses. That is your condition 11 and 12. If we include the notes from the preliminary subdivision plan on here, it will cover what we can do with that future lot too, and we will not have to create that lot at this time. Conditions 14, which is the access to the multi-use trail, we can create an easement that will serve the pedestrian linkage. Meeting streets cross section from this point out is your typical collector street 60, 41, five foot sidewalks on each side. Through this area where we were having residential homes being developed next to the school and there was an old farm lane, the cross sections were agreed that at this point where there was a pedestrian linkage into unit 8, instead of a sidewalk and then the farm lane both, we would just incorporate the farm lane. so we can have a pedestrian access easement that will connect to the residential units will follow through this future area of lot to on that farm lane until the point where it connects back out to meeting Street and we go back to a standard five foot sidewalk on both sides so we don't have a development for this portion of it or for the rest of here that we want to show and dedicate at this time but we are willing to easement that pedestrian access because it is a part of the median street system and your condition 13 which is to resolve the bike pedestrian facilities after discussions at subdivision committee i think everyone's in agreement that that is going to be handled by the city within the curves the 41 foot of street they can sign it for no parking stripe bike lanes whatever they want in there but our cross section for Meeting Street matches the approved preliminary subdivision plan, two of those. Construction plans have been drawn, approved, and they're out there building it right now. So we're not looking to modify that cross-section at this time. Any of the bike lane stuff they're talking about, I believe the city will handle within the curbs. Thank you, sir. Questions? Mr. Cayley, with number 13, as you said, it sounds like it's already built. So do we even need number 13? I don't think so because it will be up to the city's traffic engineering to sign it how they want. Okay. Traffic engineering? From the earlier discussions, I think they left that in there just so that we could have this. You're okay with deleting it? Okay. and excuse me as far as staff with the possible deletion of number 9 if we do that does that take care of 14? Yes sir both are fine so we're okay with deleting those two of them as well? Yes sir and everybody's okay? Any other questions? Yeah, Mike, I've got one. Yes. Roy, help me with this now. Meeting Street is going to be tied into the street that comes in on Patch and Wilkes? Yes, Meeting Street connects to Patch and Wilkes Drive just off of Winchester. And that'll be a car connection? Yes. Vehicles can come through there? Yes. And you're telling me that you're going to put the pedestrian part on the same part you got the car part on? No, there's sidewalks. It has the two five-foot sidewalks that are typical of the collector street. On the section that we're talking about, the old farm route. The school side of Meeting Street for the full length will have a five-foot sidewalk. The only place that we're not having the five-foot sidewalk within the right-of-way is for this section from a pedestrian link into Unit 8 homes to a point down here where the street curves away from the existing farm lane. This section to this section, we're using the existing farm lane as a pedestrian linkage. But that's not part of the street? It is not within the street right-of-way, no. The street right-of-way stays at 60. Thank you. That's my question. Any other questions? I don't see anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this, I don't think, unless they're hiding. If there's no other questions, I think we can close this part of the hearing and take a note that I believe at this point we can delete number 9, we can delete 13, we can delete 14 from the conditions. and we'll go with that and open it up for any discussion and or motion Mr. Yes sir Mr. Chairman Move approval of Plan 2015-136F Tuscany Deleting number 9 13 and 14 Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for approval of Plan 2015-136F with the now 11 conditions, deleting 8, 13, and 14. Nine. Nine, I'm sorry, deleting 9, 13, and 14. Any discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaling, Mr. Hemaker. I think we've... Thank you. Commission items. Any commission items? Staff items. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to remind the Planning Commission that we've got another quick turnaround. You'll be back here next Thursday for the items that we postponed today and for the zoning hearing. And then also, Mr. Chair, I want to take this opportunity to introduce to you our newest staff member. We have Brandy Peacher on staff, and she is sitting in the back there waving at us. She is our new design officer. Her title is administrative officer, but she is our design specialist. And her role will be to administer design excellence, the program that you all worked on for downtown design. But that program is still in the works. So in the meantime, she's also taken over the courthouse area design review process, and then she will work with us on any future applications for ND1 and other design-related issues. We also hope that this position with Brandy will be able to help us in some of our neighborhoods and commercial areas that have been talking about the need for the requesting small area plans, but what they really need is some micro area planning design-related. So we hope that Brandy will be able to help us with that as well. Brandy's no stranger to us. She's been with the Downtown Development Authority for several years and working in our building, and we already have a good relationship with her. She's on our floor now, and we are happy to have her and looking forward to getting her working. Thank you. And it sounds like Brandy has indoctrinated herself pretty well from two committee meetings already last week to today. So welcome. Any questions for Brandy? Since we've got the opportunity. No? If not, anything else? Any other commission items? If not, thank you. I'll ask for a motion for adjournment. So moved. Second. Motion has been made in second. And all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, folks. Meetings adjourned.