# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - March 10, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 10, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3897 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3897?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-03-10 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 8,833 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on March 10, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included consideration of five agenda items. The Commission took 20 motions and votes during the session and heard 8 public comments. Four subdivision amendments were approved: Boonesborough Manor Subdivision Unit 1, Cadentown Subdivision (John E. Mink Property), Brookhaven Subdivision, and Turfland Mall (Tract 2 & Outlot D) Amendment #26. The Commission also conducted a first reading on a Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment Initiation. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Frank Penn, Bill Wilson, James Duncan, Bill Sallee, Barbara Rackers, Tom Martin, Cheryl Gallt, Kelly Hunter, Dave Jarman, Denice Bullock, Hillard Newman, Jeff Neal, Captain Greg Lengal, Lieutenant Joshua Thiel, Tracy Jones, and Andrea Brown. **Absent:** Karen Mundy, Patrick Brewer, and Joe Smith. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions **Postponements** The board postponed ten items to future meeting dates by roll call vote, with all eight members voting in favor of each postponement: - DP 2016-23: Sams Property & Larkin Property (AMD) to March 24, 2016 [timestamp: 00:07:40] - DP 2016-19: Interchange Service Center, Lot 8B to April 14, 2016 [timestamp: 00:08:44] - DP 2016-20: Lexmark International, Inc. (fka: IBM) to March 24, 2016 [timestamp: 00:09:48] - PLAN 2016-16F: Lexmark International, Inc. (fka: IBM) (AMD) to March 24, 2016 [timestamp: 00:10:20] - DP 2004-66: Kingston Hall, Unit 1 to March 24, 2016 [timestamp: 00:11:22] - DP 2004-67: Kingston Hall, Unit 2 to March 24, 2016 [timestamp: 00:11:53] - DP 2007-141: Newmarket Property, Unit 8 to March 24, 2016 [timestamp: 00:13:01] - DP 2012-80: Newmarket Property, Phase 1, Unit 6 (AMD) to March 24, 2016 [timestamp: 00:13:34] - DP 2012-89: Newmarket Property, Phase I, Unit 10 to March 24, 2016 [timestamp: 00:13:58] - DP 2016-12: Loudon Park Addition, Block 2, Lots 3-10 to April 14, 2016 [timestamp: 00:14:10] **Approvals** The board approved the consent agenda as recommended by staff with an 8-0 roll call vote [timestamp: 00:19:08]. PLAN 2015-137F: Boonesboro Manor Subdivision, Unit 1 (AMD) was approved 8-0 with condition 14 revised to resolve right-of-way along the front of Section 2, Lot 1 [timestamp: 00:23:04]. PLAN 2016-17F: Cadentown Subdivision (John E. Mink Property) was approved 8-0 with condition 12 revised to resolve extent and timing of public infrastructure at the end of Campbell Lane [timestamp: 00:34:27]. A waiver request for this project was also approved 8-0 with disapproval of the surety requirement [timestamp: 00:35:01]. DP 2015-114: Brookhaven Subdivision (AMD) was approved 8-0 with 15 revised conditions [timestamp: 00:49:24]. DP 2016-11: Turfland Mall (Tract 2 & Outlot D) (AMD #26) was approved 8-0 with conditions 13 and 14 revised [timestamp: 00:57:15]. The board approved a release and call of bonds memorandum dated March 10, 2016 by 8-0 roll call vote [timestamp: 00:58:18]. **Other Actions** The board initiated a text amendment to subdivision regulations regarding major and minor classes of subdivision with an 8-0 vote [timestamp: 01:05:23]. The board voted 8-0 to enter closed session to discuss pending litigation [timestamp: 01:05:55]. The board voted 8-0 not to further an appeal regarding Skyway Towers [timestamp: 01:07:46]. ## Public Comment Several representatives presented postponement requests and project updates during the public comment period. **Postponement Requests** David White from Element Design requested a two-week postponement for DP 2016-23: SAMS PROPERTY & LARKIN PROPERTY (AMD) to allow for additional preparation [timestamp: 00:07:08]. Abby Jones from Abby Jones Consulting requested a one-month postponement for DP 2016-19: INTERCHANGE SERVICE CENTER, LOT 8B to allow for resolution of access and floodplain issues [timestamp: 00:08:10]. Matt Carter from Vision Engineering requested a two-week postponement for both DP 2016-20 and PLAN 2016-16F to address concerns regarding Legacy Trail conflict and infrastructure timing [timestamp: 00:09:48]. Rory Kahly from EA Partners requested a two-week postponement for five development plans related to Kingston Hall and New Market properties to allow for compliance with notice posting requirements [timestamp: 00:11:22]. **Project Support and Updates** Dick Murphy, representing Dr. Michael Gentry, supported staff's waiver recommendation and requested a minor revision to condition 12 to align with the final development plan for the RML property [timestamp: 00:30:40]. Jacob Walburn presented a revised plan for Brookhaven Subdivision, emphasizing improvements in traffic circulation, landscaping, and architectural design, and confirmed agreement with conditions [timestamp: 00:44:17]. Louis Morris, an owner representative, clarified that Building C will feature a masonry and stucco facade with a 22–25 foot height and no breaks in the wall plane [timestamp: 00:47:17]. Rory Kahly from EA Partners confirmed agreement with staff's conditions for Turfland Mall approval and stated that stormwater management will be resolved during construction [timestamp: 00:56:11]. ## Contested Items **Waiver of Surety Requirement for Cadentown Subdivision** The Commission faced a split vote on a request to waive the surety requirement for the Cadentown Subdivision. Staff recommended disapproval of the waiver, emphasizing the importance of financial assurance to guarantee completion of public infrastructure. Despite this staff recommendation, the Commission ultimately approved the waiver and disapproved the surety requirement. **Stormwater Management for Turfland Mall** A heated discussion arose regarding stormwater management plans for the Turfland Mall project. Staff raised significant concerns about the large impervious area associated with the development and its potential downstream impacts. Staff required the applicant to submit a detailed stormwater management plan to address these concerns. The applicant confirmed their commitment to addressing stormwater management during the construction phase. The discussion centered on best management practices for handling stormwater runoff from the project. ## BOONESBOROUGH MANOR SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1 (AMD) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2015-137F The Planning Commission discussed an amendment to Boonesborough Manor Subdivision, Unit 1, which involved creating Section 2, Lot 1, and dedicating Doe Run Trail right-of-way [00:19:38]. **Key Speakers and Positions** Fred Eastridge and Tom Martin were the primary speakers during this discussion. **Committee Recommendation and Staff Response** The Subdivision Committee had recommended postponement of the plan, citing a lack of review by the City Attorney's Office (CAO). However, staff confirmed that the road inspection had been completed, addressing one of the outstanding requirements for approval. **Issues and Resolution** The primary concern involved the right-of-way dedication for Doe Run Trail. Rather than resolving this issue at the current stage, the Commission approved the plan with a revised condition that deferred resolution of the right-of-way matter to the final development plan stage. **Outcome** The plan was **approved** with the modified condition regarding the right-of-way dedication to be addressed during final development plan review. ## CADENTOWN SUBDIVISION (JOHN E. MINK PROPERTY) (AMD) **Plan 2016-17F** The Commission reviewed an amendment to subdivide a split-zoned lot along the existing zone line [timestamp: 00:23:37]. Key speakers included Dick Murphy and Tom Martin. **Presentation and Discussion** Staff presented a waiver request related to public infrastructure completion for the subdivision. The proposal involved subdividing property with different zoning designations, with the division occurring along the existing zone line. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the waiver request with one exception: staff recommended disapproval of the surety requirement portion of the waiver. **Outcome** The Commission approved the subdivision plan with revised conditions. The waiver request was approved, with the surety requirement disapproved as recommended by staff. ## BROOKHAVEN SUBDIVISION (AMD) **Project Identifier:** DP 2015-114 The Commission reviewed an amended final development plan for Brookhaven Subdivision, which proposed to increase buildable area and revise parking and circulation for the project. [timestamp: 00:36:03] **Presentation and Discussion** Staff and the applicant presented revised plans that addressed concerns raised in prior reviews. Key speakers in the discussion included Dave Peterson, Jacob Walburn, and Louis Morris. **Outcome** The amended development plan was approved. The approval included 15 revised conditions, which addressed landscaping and architectural improvements for the project. ## TURFLAND MALL (TRACT 2 & OUTLOT D) (AMD #26) **Item:** DP 2016-11 The Commission reviewed an amendment to the Turfland Mall development plan to revise the building layout, add two outlots, and improve parking arrangements [timestamp: 00:49:59]. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Kelly Hunter, Tom Martin, and Rory Kahly participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Issues Raised** Staff raised concerns regarding stormwater management as part of their review of the proposed amendments. The applicant was questioned about how the revised site plan would address stormwater drainage and related infrastructure requirements. **Applicant Response** The applicant confirmed that the development plans would include measures to address stormwater management concerns identified by staff. Additionally, the applicant acknowledged and committed to resolving vehicular stacking issues on the site. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amendment with conditions. Approval was contingent upon the applicant resolving stormwater management and vehicular stacking issues to staff satisfaction prior to final implementation of the revised site plan. ## Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment Initiation [timestamp: 01:01:33] Staff presented a proposal to amend the subdivision regulations text. The proposed amendment included two main components: reducing acreage requirements for non-building plats and allowing development plans to substitute for record plats. Bill Sallee presented the staff recommendation for this text amendment initiation. The Commission discussed the proposed changes and determined that the amendment warranted further consideration through the formal public hearing process. Following this discussion, the Commission initiated the amendment process by motion, moving the proposal to first reading. This action allows the text amendment to proceed to public hearings, where additional community input and formal review will occur before any final adoption decision is made. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2016-23: SAMS PROPERTY & LARKIN PROPERTY (AMD) to March 24, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2016-19: INTERCHANGE SERVICE CENTER, LOT 8B to April 14, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2016-20: LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. (FKA: IBM) to March 24, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of PLAN 2016-16F: LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. (FKA: IBM) (AMD) to March 24, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2004-66: KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 1 to March 24, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2004-67: KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 2 to March 24, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2007-141: NEWMARKET PROPERTY, UNIT 8 to March 24, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2012-80: NEWMARKET PROPERTY, PHASE 1, UNIT 6 (AMD) to March 24, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2012-89: NEWMARKET PROPERTY, PHASE I, UNIT 10 to March 24, 2016 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2016-12: LOUDON PARK ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOTS 3-10 to April 14, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of consent agenda as recommended by staff - **PLAN 2015-137F** — passed (8-0): Approval of Boonesboro Manor Subdivision, Unit 1 (AMD) with condition 14 revised to resolve right-of-way along front of Section 2, Lot 1 - **PLAN 2016-17F** — passed (8-0): Approval of Cadentown Subdivision (John E. Mink Property) with condition 12 revised to resolve extent and timing of public infrastructure at end of Campbell Lane at final development plan for RML property - **Waiver Request for PLAN 2016-17F** — passed (8-0): Approval of waiver request for Cadentown Subdivision with disapproval of surety requirement - **DP 2015-114** — passed (8-0): Approval of Brookhaven Subdivision (AMD) with 15 revised conditions - **DP 2016-11** — passed (8-0): Approval of Turfland Mall (TRACT 2 & OUTLOT D) (AMD #26) with conditions 13 and 14 revised to resolve - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of release and call of bonds memorandum dated March 10, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Initiation of text amendment to subdivision regulations regarding major and minor classes of subdivision - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Closed session to discuss pending litigation - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Motion not to further an appeal regarding Skyway Towers --- ## Full transcript members with the renovations? Actually we've added more features for membership so when somebody joins the newly renovated and expanded North Y it also automatically includes the downtown High Street Y and we provide lots of programs and services at both location and there's so much potential in this community and we've positioned it where we can help support our neighbors help for a better community and for a better us. So every child and family has potential as does this community and we are ready to invite people to come in and try the Y. So we want to thank you for being here today and the Y just has so much more. Okay thanks for having me today. I know I was here for the ribbon cutting when they first opened the new Y after the renovations and there was a lot of excitement and I kind of made a reference to you know the only thing better than buying a new house is getting the current house that you have renovated. And that's exactly what they've done here at the Y. Can you tell us about anything that's coming soon, any new initiatives or any new programs that are going to be here at the Y? Sure. My name is Dave Peterson. I'm the director of community health and the wellness director here at the North Y. And we've got many great programs here at our Y. Lots of group exercise classes that are free for membership. We've got three personal training appointments. We've got three free appointments for personal trainers and three half-hour personal training sessions for members to get acclimated and orientated to all the new equipment that we've got here. Our wellness center expanded, over doubled in size with our renovation. It's over 7,000 square feet. We've got all brand new equipment, state-of-the-art equipment. All of our equipment is very user-friendly. It's very easy to use. It's great for a very diverse population of everybody from very avid fitness enthusiasts to brand new exercisers. And so we've got just a lot of great opportunity for members to become engaged and connected and become healthier. But some of our programs that we do outside of the wellness center, we've got a diabetes prevention program. that is a national program. It is for anybody at risk for developing type 2 diabetes, which in our area, in this community, is over one in three adults are at risk for diabetes. And only 7% on average even are aware of that. So we've got a wonderful program for helping to reduce your risk for diabetes. We've got a program for cancer survivors. It's a free program called the Live Strong at the YMCA program that is open. It's a free program for any cancer survivor. It's a 12-week program. where they can come in, be physically active, exercise in a small group, have the camaraderie of interacting with other cancer survivors and trained coaches. We've got a new program called Enhanced Fitness, which is for anybody who suffers from joint pain, which we find is one of the most common ailments that people suffer from is joint pain, load-bearing joint pain, knee pain, ankle pain, hip pain. We've got a group exercise class that's specifically tailored for those that are suffering from joint pain, And that class is starting in March. So we've got a lot of new initiatives and new programs that we are really excited about that will be starting. Yes, and our cause is the strengthening foundation of community. That's our promise to the community. We're for youth development, healthy living, and social responsibility. And we provide an open-door policy, which means no one is turned away due to inability to pay. We're a nonprofit charitable organization, and we provide scholarship money to support kids and families and older adults and everyone in the community to get healthier. Yeah, I'm familiar with your scholarship program. I think it's a great thing that you do to try to make sure that you make the facility accessible and do what you can to help mitigate costs so families can join. I know it's, I mean, I remember the previous facility and the way it looked. I mean, it's a completely different feel. I mean, it's so much room and so much area and so many new pieces of equipment, and everybody seems like they're getting their workout on and enjoying themselves. So we're going to talk about a couple of other programs that they have here at the North Y. We're going to talk about the after-school programs. We're going to maybe get some questions answered about the youth sports programs that they have here at the Y as well. So we'll be back in a few minutes. Okay, we're back. We're here in the multipurpose room slash community room. And as you can tell, this is a very inviting space with the upgrades, you know, as far as the mirrors and the kind of feels like a bouncy floor. We're here with Jessica Berry, who is VP of Youth Development, and Amber Sirius, who is the Operations Director here at the North Y. Amber, if you would, could you tell us about the youth sports programming that we have here at the North Y? Sure. Right now we're registering for our spring sports. So we have flag football and soccer for ages 5 up to ages 13. And we're just finishing up our basketball league for kids, and we'll offer it again in the summertime. Okay, what ages do you focus on for your youth sports programs? We usually start at age, I said 5, but it's actually 4. We even do soccer as young as 3, and then we go up to age 13. Okay. Yeah, I know I actually have a son. He's currently in the basketball program. Okay. But I was a little disappointed because when they started the season, we had to go down. Peace and gentlemen. It is March 10th, 1.30. I will call this meeting to order. I'd like to welcome everyone here. We have no minutes for approval, so we'll move to postponements and withdrawals from today's agenda. Do we have any? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. It doesn't have to be a race. Good afternoon. I'd like to direct your attention to DP 2016-23, Sam's Property, and Larkin Property. Hold on one second. Let's get to that. It's on page 10. Oh, I'm sorry. Page 10. Thank you. Sorry about that. Next to last page. There we go. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Get your name for the record, please. David White. I'm with Element Design. I represent the owners. we would like to ask for a two-week 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. That would be March the 24th. Yes? Mr. Chair, I move postponement of DP 2016-23, Sam's property, to March 24. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for a postponement of DP 2016-23 Sam's property and Larkin property until March 24th. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Abby Jones, Abby Jones Consulting. We would like a 30-day postponement of DP 2016-19. That's the bottom of page 9. Interchange service center lot 8B. I'm sorry, did you say two weeks? A month. One month, I'm sorry. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? That will be April the 14th, I believe. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for postponement of DP 2016-19 for one month until, what did you say, April 14th? Motion to be made then seconded for postponement of DP 2016-19 Interchange Service Center until April the 14th. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you, ma'am. Others? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn to page 3 in your agenda, item F, Plan 2016-16F, Lexmark International, Inc., we request a two-week postponement. March 24th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, if not. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Move postponement plan 2016-16F for two weeks. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement plan 2016-16L flex mark in International for two weeks, March 24th. Please vote. Motion passes. Also, if you turn in your agenda to page 10, item P DP 2016-20 Lexmark International Inc. We request a two-week postponement as well for this one. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for a postponement DP 2016-20 to March the 24th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. My motion passes. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. On page four, under development plans, the first two items are both at Kingston Hall. First one is DP 2004-66, Kingston Hall Unit 1, and 2004-67, Kingston Hall Unit 2. Request a two-week postponement for both of these. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement of either one of them, commission members? If not, I'd like motions separately. Yes. Mr. Chair, move postponement of DP2004-66, Kingston Hall Unit 1, to March 24. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Yes, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Second one? Move postponement of DP2004-67, Kingston Hall Unit 2, to March 24. Second. Motion has been made in. Seconded for postponement. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Yes, sir. The next three items are all on the New Market property. I'm going to request the same two-week postponement. Do you want me to read them all as one or individually? Read them all together. All right, New Market 2007-141, New Market Unit 8, DP 2012-80, New Market Property Unit 6, DP 2012-89, New Market Property Unit 10. Request a two-week postponement to March 24th for all three of those. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for any one of the three being postponed? Commission members? If not, once again, I'd like motions for each one individually. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2007-141, New Market Unit 8, for two weeks. Motion has been made in a second of postponement for two weeks until March 24th. Please vote. Motion passes. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2012-80, Unit 6, for two weeks. Motion made and seconded for postponement for two weeks. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes, yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2012-89, New Market Property, Unit 10, for two weeks. Second. The motion has been made and seconded for postponement for two weeks, DP 2012-89. Please vote. That motion passes. Yes, sir. Thank you. That's it? Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes, sir? Mr. Chairman, staff would like to direct your attention to page 7, bottom of that page, DP 2016-12, Loudoun Park Edition, Block 2. we have received a written communication from the applicant requesting 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. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, move for a postponement for one month, DP 2016-12, Loudon Park. Thank you. Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. This is for Postponement DP 2016-12. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Any others? If not, thank you. We'll move to the consent agenda at this point in time. I'll ask Mr. Salee to walk us through the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. You have a lengthy agenda, but you also have a lengthy consent agenda this afternoon. There are four plans on your consent agenda that are recommended for approval by your subdivision committee, all conditional approval. The first is on page 2, item B, plan 2016-4F. This is a plat for Greendale Hills, unit 2C, for property at 2930 Spur Road. Next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item C, plan 2016-13F, Pemberton Farm, lot 4. This is also known as Bluegrass Business Park and Burke, Hawkins, Smith, and Maggard et al. This involves property with an address of 2221 and 22, pardon me, 2151 Georgetown Road. On page 2, item D, this plan is also on your consent agenda, Plan 2016-14F, Clark Property Unit 3B, Lot 38, and amended final record plat for property at 2184 Millstone Way. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda. Plan 2016-15F, the fairways at Andover, also known as the Forker Property, Unit 1C amended. This involves property located at Autumn Ridge Drive and Marco Lane. These four items are recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The next item appearing on the consent agenda we have a waiver request for, and so we will plan to present that to you in just a few minutes later in your meeting. There are also six development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 6, item G of your meeting agenda, DP 2016-7, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 5, Lot 10. This is for property at 980 Midnight Pass. On page 8, item J, this development plan is on the consent agenda, DP 2016-14, Bluegrass Business Park Lot 4, also known as Pemberton Farm and Burke, Hawkins, Smith & Maggard property, an amended final development plan for property at 2151 and 2221 Georgetown Road. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 8, item K, an amended final development plan, DP 2016-15, Howard and Hayfee Property, Lot 3, at 1134 Winchester Road. On page 8, item L, this plan is on your consent agenda, DP 2016-16, Arcadia Investments, Lot 3 and 4, also known as Metathorpe Manor, an amended final development plan for property at 1590, 1600, and 1610 Leestown Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. Page 9, item M, DP 2016-17, Gardenside Shopping Center, Parcel 3, also known as the Pearson and Trapp property, an amended final development plan for 1808 Alexandria Drive. One more item on your consent agenda. It's on page 9, item N, DP 2016-18, an amended final development plan for Sand Lake and Estes property, lot 3. This is for AutoZone, located at 120 Sand Lake Drive. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the commission can consider approving these plans, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants for these plans would ask the commission to remove them, at this time to allow for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. 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 will remind you that the one Cadentown subdivision is off the consent agenda. That's the one exception that is shown. So if you're ready, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, move approval of a consent agenda as recommended by staff. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. We will move to page one at this time. Excuse me. Under final subdivision plans, it's plan 2015-137F. Boonesboro Manor subdivision. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, As stated, this is Plan 2015-137F Boonesboro Manor, Subdivision Unit 1. It is an amended final subdivision plat for the property located at 5354 Athens Boonesboro Road. Athens Boonesboro Road here. Doe Run Trail. You've got 75. Here's actually the ramp for it. Coming down here. Of course, Bay Area County back this way. You have your speedway and a Marathon, I believe, stationed here. The purpose of this was to create Section 2, Lot 1, and to dedicate right away for the Doe Run Trail. You may remember this one. It's been postponed several times because the dedicating of this has to go through several steps, including review by the CAO office for y'all's consideration. Your subdivision committee did recommend this for postponement because we had not received notification that that has been taking place, but you do have in your handouts an email from Mr. Chester Hicks stating they have inspected the road, they are going to take it, however, it just has not gone through the council reading it, and they hope to get that through there in the next month, I believe, he states on his email. Do you have any questions or comments about it? Any questions? Nope. Thank you. Yes, sir? Well, I was mentioned the road is only constructed to here. That's it. There is nothing that goes beyond this. This is why you see this piece right here. It doesn't have frontage. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Applicant. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Fred Eastridge with ECSI, representing the drawing. I would like to ask for approval subject to the conditions as stated. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Eastridge? Not at this time. Thank you. Tom? Yeah, you're coming. Very quickly, in the interest of moving on, I believe there's a condition, number 14, that says discuss right away. I believe we can resolve that issue with the app. We're headed that direction, I think. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Commission members, any questions? If not, I can close this and entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Move approval of Plan 2015-137F Boonesboro Manor with resolving number 14. Motion to maiden seconded for the approval of Plan 2015-137F, change of number 14 to read resolve right away along the front of Section 2, Lot 1, at time of final development plan. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you so much. Long time coming, it seems like. Move to the bottom of page 3, plan 2016-17F, Cadentown subdivision. You do have a waiver request before you as well on this. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. This is Plan 2016-17F, Cadentown Subdivision, known as the John E. Mink Property, and amended the final record plat for property located at 2833 Liberty Road. The purpose of this amendment is to subdivide one split zone lot into two lots along the existing zone line. The existing zone line being here, this would be the new property line being created. This property is located off Liberty Road and Campbell Lane. The Man of War intersection with Liberty Road is just off the plan down here in this direction. This property is, this tract is zoned R4. This tract where you may recall the veterinary clinic would be is the B4 parcel. Here are your existing residential lots along Campbell Lane, which currently terminates in this area here. This tract 2, the R4 tract, is actually part of a zoning development plan that you saw on January 28th, came before you on January 28th, that was incorporated into the Brighton 3050. development plan, the Brighton 3050 development, which lies over here in this area. The purpose of that was to rezone an R1D lot here and include this tract, bring it in to the construction of two more apartment buildings and the Brighton 3050 development. After a review, the subdivision committee had recommended approval as planned subject to the standard conditions, and that includes all down through number nine. Number ten, we ask that they denote the urban county engineer certification on the plan. Number eleven, denote the anticipated timing of Campbell Lane right-of-way closure on the plan. What would be that timing? And that would be occurring in this area right here, just short of the R1D property that I'd mentioned. And finally, number 12, clarify the extent and timing of any required public infrastructure at the end of Campbell Lane, meaning cul-de-sac, designed according to subdivision rigs. So at this point, we'll take your questions and comments. Any questions? Yes, sir. If my memory serves me correctly, there is no contact between the veterinary clinic and this development. that's a closed entrance, is that right? There's no way to come out of the veterinary clinic and come into this. No, sir. There's a fire gate, but it is just that, a fire gate. There's no public access. Other questions? If not, thank you, sir. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, there is a waiver request that's been distributed to you for this particular subdivision. You'll notice there are a lot of references on the top of your waiver report. These all flow out of the single most important request, and you've seen a lot of these lately, and this is the request for a waiver of substantial completion of public infrastructure. And these others that you see refer to aspects of public infrastructure. In particular, the one you've seen a lot of and what we are seeing today is sanitary sewer. And it pertains to this lot. They're not going to be able to, at this time, without considerable work and design, supply the public sanitary sewer to this lot. That's due to some topographic issues that they've run into and that exist on this lot. This lot will be able to access a manhole and receive public sewer. The other option they would have would be to cross Liberty Road, which presents its own set of challenges. So they are, when they bring in a final development plan and develop this site, they will be providing the sewer to that facility. And, of course, they couldn't occupy it without doing that. So, again, there's a preliminary development plan here. There will be a final development plan. The R4 section is going to be incorporated into the overall development for these apartments that exist down here. And it can be sewered. There will be connections. A final development plan has been submitted, which is addressing the termination of Campbell Lane. The Campbell Lane closure process has begun. They've submitted their information to the city. That will go through a normal review process, and they're going to close most of this section of right-of-way on Campbell. There's another small waiver attached to this that addresses street trees. Street trees are required along residential property on a local street. Since that's going to be closed, they're going to have a canopy requirement. They're going to be landscaping and planting trees. Staff agreed that it wasn't necessary to actually put in street trees. along a section of right-of-way that's going to be closed. Staff does agree as well that due to the topographic issues and the issue of Liberty Road that the waiver for public sewer is justified at this time for that lot. The applicant also requested a waiver of the surety requirements. That's 4-7D-9. Now, staff has never supported that waiver, and we're not supporting it. We're recommending disapproval of it on this request as well. You will see when you look at your waiver report that we followed our standard procedure. When people request a waiver of public infrastructure, we recommend that they post a surety to cover that public infrastructure. That is the instrument that exists to ensure that it gets done. And so we feel that is absolutely necessary. that a bond be posted or some form of surety. And that would be in conformance with our land subdivision regulations. And I'll answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Dr. Michael Gentry, who's purchasing the property. staff pointed out the property on the left is the property where the veterinary clinic and kennel will be this property on the right is the one he's conveying to rml construction and affiliate of ball homes and the purpose of this is to create the plat so that the parcel can go ahead and be conveyed to ball homes it's sort of like a non-building plat and we they're under time constraints to get this piece conveyed over to Ball Holmes. So we're basically in agreement with the staff recommendation. I did talk to Dr. Gentry. He's agreeable to posting the surety, so we're in agreement with the staff recommendation on the waiver. The only other thing I wanted to mention on condition 12 is where to clarify extent and timing of any required public infrastructure at the end of Campbell Lane. I think we sort of discussed this and would request that to be changed to resolve extent and timing of any required public infrastructure at the end of Campbell Lane at the final development plan for the RML property. As staff mentioned, that has already been filed, and you'll be seeing that next month anyway, how we're resolving that. So that is in the works, and the closure of Campbell Lane has been filed with the city, and that's in the works too. So we're hoping that that will be all timed out for the final development plan for the rml property there so in short we'd ask that minor minor modification of 12 otherwise we're in total agreement with what the staff has recommended thank you mr murphy let me let me just clarify with number 12 you're saying resolve at final development plan at the final development plan for the rml construction plan that's track two i think Yes, it's track two. I got close enough to be able to see it. Okay, then. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Yeah, I've got something. Yes, sir. Mr. Murphy, come back. Mr. Murphy, you're all sewer for the Ball Holmes part. It'll be connected with the veterinary clinic when you sewer it at that time? No, I think it's going to be separate. It's coming in from the other parts of the complex here. it's the vet clinic that's having the trouble. I understand that, but I didn't understand the part that this was going to another lab. Yeah, this will go to another location. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to offer anything on this plan request? You okay with everything? I didn't know if you were coming back. It looked like you were coming back. Staff is agreeable to the wording on condition 12. Okay, thank you. It seems like in the past on the plan we've had some sort of mention as far as approval of the waiver. Mr. Salley, can you help us with that? Mr. Chairman, I think if you incorporate the waiver either through a separate motion or part of a single motion on the plan, it will refer to today's date in the certification. And, of course, your minutes will have a complete discussion of everything that's been considered. And a copy of the staff report Mr. Martin's presented to you will also be in the minutes. So I think it will be clear from a record standpoint. Also, to clarify, the RML track, track 2, does have access to sewer currently. There is a manhole in Campbell Lane that can serve it. It's the division that's creating the waiver. Thank you. Questions from the commission? If there's nothing else, I'll close this part, open it up for any discussion and or motions. I would prefer two motions, one on the plan, one on the waiver, noting that the waiver is approval and also disapproval of one item. Mr. Cravens. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of Plan 2016-17F, changing number 12 to resolve. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2016-17F Cadentown Subdivision with the 12 conditions. Change of number 12 to resolve. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval and disapproval of the waiver for staff. I think you'll do that in both one motion. I just did it. As staff recommended. As move approval of the waiver as staff recommended, and then there was disapproval of surety on the waiver by staff. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval as the staff has recommended of the waiver request with the one disapproval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We can move to page 6, Brookhaven Subdivision. You do have a revision on a very bright yellow sheet of paper that is before you. This is Development Plan 2015-114, Brookhaven Subdivision, an amended final development plan for property located at 2434 and 2450 Nicholasville Road and 100 Malibu Drive. The Commission had postponed this item at the December 10th, 2015, January 14th, 2016, February 11th, 2016 meetings. The purpose of this amendment to the plan is to increase the buildable area for buildings A, B, and C and to revise the parking and circulation. Your subdivision committee had recommended postponement also due to some questions regarding parking compliance and proposed restaurant uses and outdoor site features and orientation of Building C to Surfside Drive. However, on March 7th we received a revised plan and we had met twice with the applicant, very productive meetings. They had forwarded revised plans that were considerably, in staff's opinion, considerably improved. As a result of these revisions and the two meetings we had, we can offer this plan which you see in front of you now. This property is located along Nicholasville Road. AFC is right over here, so we'll get the landmark established right away. This is Malibu Drive, Surfside Drive. And this is the existing Rite Aid Pharmacy building here at the intersection. This plan proposes to add these buildings, outlined here, to the rest of the lot, this being the B3 area of the lot. Rite 8 is a B1 area. Okay? The original plan had lacked many features that the current plan offers in terms of traffic circulation, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, etc. We were very concerned, quite frankly. We were also concerned about the orientation of these two buildings to Surfside Drive, the back wall, the blank wall, along Surfside Drive. We were concerned about those architectural considerations also. But as I said, after submission of a couple of revisions, this is what they have come up with. And for this reason, we have been able to recommend approval of this plan as it stands right now, as it is in front of you. The revised conditions are here on this bright yellow or lime green sheet in front of you. the first nine conditions are standard sign-offs condition number 10 correct street frontage and area and right-of-way information here in the site statistics number 11 delete note number nine or 12 denote the height of the buildings and feet and these are standard checklist items for any development plan number 13 correct note Number 8, that's the verbiage correction. Condition 14, resolve the loss of outdoor site features for Building C compared to the current plan. And that is a reference to the current plan as compared to what was submitted. Therefore, we believe with what is submitted here that a resolution of that at this time is possible. Then number 15, submission of a detailed landscape plan to mitigate the orientation of Building C with respect to Surfside Drive to the approval and vision of planning. That is, in particular, this landscaping here, which is buffering for the rear of Building C and Building D here, which has been a concern of ours since the beginning, since their first plan submittal. So at this point in time, we'll turn it over to you for questions and comments. Thanks, Dave. If you could, you know, the last two I think are kind of critical situations. In regards to Building C, the loss of outdoor features, can you give us a little bit more detail what you're talking about? Show us exactly what Building C is and what you're talking about as far as loss of features? Building C, that is a reference to what they had submitted in the first place as compared to the current plan. The current plan, which unfortunately you don't have in front of you, the current plan had some very desirable interior features. It did not have these buildings with their backs to Surfside Drive. It didn't have such a stark wall running down Surfside Drive. We were concerned about the architectural aspects of that and the loss of the landscaping there. However, with the submittal of this plan, we feel that there has been a marked improvement in that aspect. Yes, there was a loss of those features with their first submittal. But with the plan in front of you, we feel like there has been sufficient design consideration given to where we could move from postponement to approval. Okay. The outdoor site features of Building C, is that strictly on the back side? Not necessarily. That's a good question. It also refers to this patio, the pavers, the sidewalk, the planters, the architectural features that had appeared on the current plan, but for a period of time, with their first and middle, had disappeared. There were no such features. It was, frankly, fairly stark. Okay. But it has been restored, and traffic circulation is much improved. We feel that pedestrian circulation and pedestrian security has also been enhanced. That was a reference also to the patio and sidewalk out here, the planters, the crosswalks, etc., the traffic control measures to slow traffic down a bit and prevent fast cut-throughs and so forth. We feel like that those features in all enhance the plan. Okay. The last one, submission of detailed landscape plan, obviously you're looking for more information there. What about the architectural features as far as design features on the back wall of the buildings? Did they come up with anything there? I believe the, yes, I believe they do have, I recall renderings. I believe perhaps the applicant can perhaps show you some renderings of the architectural features and what that aspect of the buildings would look like. We recall seeing those. So yes, I believe that's available. Thanks. I'm sorry. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant. Good news, we were pulling out the renderings to show you. To give a little background, I've asked for a postponement on this plan a number of times. As you can now see, although the subdivision committee did already review, it's because the hotel is no longer on this site. It was previously a loft hotel, or as Mr. Penn will remember, the Rafferty's restaurant before that. because of the substantial revision that this has gone through, we don't believe the hotel is not coming to Lexington. It's just not going to be at the site. We're working with the hotel to pick a more appropriate site. But because of the substantial revisions, because of the issues with the first plan that actually still depicted the hotel but was otherwise a little stark, we had very productive conversations with staff, multiple meetings, and I'm sure, as Mr. Jarman and Mr. Slee can tell you, multiple phone calls and e-mails from me as well. We wanted to take this back through the technical committee process and the subdivision committee process to get feedback from those processes, which we have now done, and we're very pleased to be able to present this to you today. We are agreeable to the condition regarding landscaping on the back. We realize how important that issue is. With respect to Building D, which is the building immediately adjacent, There's actually a long retaining wall that goes behind here that obscures that building. The retaining wall terminates in this area, and this is more on street level with Surfside, so we understand the need to screen that. We have put together some renderings that I'll put up here for you. As you can see, we're just going to keep it really dark. No, I'm kidding. Do you have anticipation of this just shows trees? We would obviously have some ground as well. But just how we're going to treat the rear of the building to give you an idea of what we intend to do. but we will provide an adequate landscape to the satisfaction of planning staff to account for screening on the back side. Other than that, I do have a representative of the owner and the engineer here today to the extent you have any questions, but we are pleased to be able to present this plan to you today. Questions for Mr. Wahlberg? Give me just a little bit of detail as to the back wall, side wall. Are we talking about it looks like one-third brick and one-third or two-thirds metal or what? And it's just all one plane? I think the top is more stucco than it is metal. This is Louis Morris. He's the owner representative. I'll let him address that. Right now we're proposing to have a third up or a quarter up of masonry. We've not settled yet on what type of masonry that will be, but we're thinking a brick of some color. And then above that, we're looking at a nephus, stucco type of appearance up to the roof line. And all of it, just one plane, no brakes in it? That's correct. Questions for the applicant from the commission? Yes, ma'am. How tall is the wall? I'm sorry? How tall? I believe in one rendering we have shown 25 feet. I believe that's correct. It's 22 to 25 feet. We've done several sections and studies and so on. We've had various heights. So with this building we were proposing to have to the top of the parapet on the higher portion around the front would be 25 feet. And as you can see in the back, it steps down three to four feet. from that. Other questions? No. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? No? Okay. If there's no further questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion. Motions? Yes, Chair. I'm going to move for approval of DP 2015-114 with the 15 revised conditions. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP 2015-114. We're having subdivision with the now revised, newly revised 15 conditions. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Next, page 7, in the middle of the page, DP 2016-11, Turfland Mall. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, this is DP 2016-11 Turfland Mall, Track 2, Outlot D, for property located at 2033 and 2097 and 2195 Harrodsburg Road. Here, of course, we have Lane Allen, Home Depot, Harrodsburg Road. purpose of this was to add two out lots one here we have the chick-fil-a's here o charlie's and here's our one outlet and here was the second one they were going to add and to revise the building layout and parking for the middle and back portion of the lot you can see we have two drive-throughs here and a drive-through here with traffic coming in in this way these areas here patios along through here your subdivision committee recommended approval of it based on the conditions that you can see on your agenda. The first seven being, eight being your normal sign-offs of the Division of Fire, Bike and Ped, Urban Forester. And we have number nine is the Division and Documentation Division of Water Quality for the CAP. Ten we had to denote location of existing storm sewer in the southeast corner of the property down down here we have a storm sewer there's some needing to have that located on there need the addition of contour intervals and source on the plan dimension of the public space areas is the areas i was pointing to the patios just outside the buildings We have discussed stormwater management plan for the development. There are, we don't know of any problems downstream from this that is related back to here, but we just do have this large area. It's maybe some type of quality control in it. That's something that water quality will get with them and discuss. and discuss it. The last one was discuss the vehicular stacking for the drive-thrus, but I believe traffic engineering and the applicant has worked that one out. They're going to have a 30-foot lane between the existing health care for UK building and the new buildings. I think like I said this was recommended for approval, but if you have any questions or comments about it. Thank you. Mr. Penn, you got a question? No. Oh, that's a while back? Yes, a while back. Okay. Sorry. So, Kelly, as far as the stormwater management, no problems downstream, but obviously that is a large area. Yes, sir. So is this an area that you wanted to bring up? Of course, one of the things staff might maybe see something down in here, pedestrian, kind of a water quality feature here. Okay. There will be a number of things that could be utilized in that. I don't believe Mr. Martin may have. Okay. Mr. Martin. I'll elaborate a little bit on that. You may recall the last plan you just saw, Brookhaven. Brookhaven has to meet the same standards that Turf and Mall does. Brookhaven has no known downstream flooding. They're decreasing their impervious area. You'll recall there's more green being provided on that particular plan. And staff is concerned with this large site that it's subject to the same standards. They are going to have to address water quality. However, this is largely the same as it was with the mall, the same impervious surface. It's basically just parking. There is some landscaping being shown. One of the concerns we have, is this impervious? Is this actual landscaping islands, for instance? They will have to meet that. They will submit detailed plans to engineering. Planning staff has discussed that with engineering. And they will address whether or not that's underground detention, whether or not it's mechanical ways, best management practice, or there is, in fact, a reduction in impervious. But this is such a large site, and this is an issue, and it's an issue on all these redevelopments and in this area as well. That's why that discussion item was on there. We do believe, I think, in discussion with engineering and with the applicant that we can resolve that. Nonetheless, we felt it important to have it on the table here in front of the Planning Commission. Thank you, sir. Any questions? If not, applicant? Mr. Cayley? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I'm in agreement with Kelly and Tom I believe that 13 and 14 can both be resolved we know we're going to have to do something for the storm water when we get into the construction aspects of it site's currently all impervious, we are making it better with the green areas shown there and request approval Thank you sir. Any questions for Mr. Kaley? No one else in the audience? It doesn't seem like it. Jeff Neal, Mr. Newman, thumbs up on 13 and 14. Thumbs up. They're good with it. All right. Thank you, sir. If there's no other questions, I can close this part of the hearing, open it up for discussion and or motions. Anyone want to make a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2016-11 Turfland Mall with the 14 conditions as approved by staff with the changing of 13 and 14 to resolve. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for approval of DP 2016-11 with 14 conditions changing 13 and 14 to resolve. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes. Thank you. I think yes sir Mr. Cravens Mr. Chairman I'm going to move approval of the release and call of bonds Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion to be made and seconded for the release of call of bonds memorandum dated March 10, 2016. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. I think that's all the regular agenda items, commission items. We've got a couple. Mr. Duncan, do you want to speak to that? Mr. Chair, the first item, the commission item, is a response to a notice that we sent out to you all yesterday requesting one or two members of the Planning Commission to serve on a committee, an advisory committee, for the update of the Rural Land Management Plan. Two other bodies have weighed in with membership, and we'd like the Planning Commission to be part of that as well. Staff has been identified and will be working on this plan for the next year or so. We'll be looking for members of the committee who will be willing to do homework and bring tasks back to follow-up meetings, But I think it will be a worthwhile endeavor. And once we're finished, we'll bring the Rural Land Management Plan updated back to the Planning Commission for consideration for adoption. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Penn, you had indicated an interest? Yes, sir. Anyone else for a second? If not, I'll volunteer for a second on that. So it would be Frank and myself. Also, work session. Can I ask a question? Yes. Mr. Duncan, is this being initiated by the Rural Land Management Board, or who's initiating this? Mr. Penn, this is a task from the comprehensive plan, so I would say this is something the staff is bringing forward as an implementation item. It was identified in the 2013 plan, and we're now to it. I would not say the Rural Land Management Board is a part of this, but this is as much a planning commission project as well. So I'm safe to say we're initiating this and they're going to participate. Is that right? Yes, that would be. Because I serve on both boards and I don't want to get crossways here. No, that's fine. Also, commission item, we do have a work session next Thursday. Next Thursday, St. Patrick's Day, we'll be in the Phoenix Building again, third floor. We're expecting the presentation by Commerce Lexington that was postponed from last month as we continue to discuss potential changes to the ED zones. And then staff will have some additional information for you at that meeting as well. Okay. That's at 1.30 again on the third floor of the Phoenix Building. 1.30, third floor, where are you green? Audience, any other commission items? And then, Mr. Chair, we have two other things on the agenda. We'd like to have the closed session, perhaps, as the last item. So if we can move on then to the text amendment initiation, and then we'll come back to the closed session. Thank you, sir. Subdivision regulations, text amendment initiation. Mr. Salee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This item is on page 11 of your agenda, and we've handed out to you a draft text amendment to the subdivision regulations. I believe we shared this with you about three weeks ago at your last work session, is my recollection on this. At that time, we talked about the possibility of expanding what is allowable as a non-building subdivision plan. And the reason the staff is bringing this to you is that you've had a large increase in the number of waiver requests for properties, as you had one today, that wish to go forward without completion of infrastructure. We have had for many years in our regulations a minor plat allowance for large properties for that purpose. A common term for that type of plat is a takedown plat, where a developer can either take a piece of a property or all of a property for transfer of ownership, knowing that that property will later be developed and normal infrastructure procedures will occur. Again, much like the plan you saw today. The staff is suggesting two possible changes with this text amendment that we ask you to consider initiation. One is to reduce the acreage requirement for that plat in most cases. Currently, that's a 10-acre minimum. the staff would suggest taking that as low as one acre, except in the case where you have a zone that requires a much larger minimum lot size than one acre. We do have three or four zones that require that, and in that case it makes no sense from a staff perspective to allow a plat smaller than the minimum lot size in that zone. So rather than a flat 10-acre requirement, we would suggest a one-acre requirement or the minimum of the zone, whichever is greater. The other change that we're proposing is to allow a development plan to substitute for a record plat in terms of allowing development to proceed on a property. That is probably these days as common occurrence for the commission as receiving a follow-up plat. Again, this was designed in the era of large farms being developed into subdivisions. Now we're seeing much more of a focus on infill and redevelopment and infill properties being developed, and the development plan procedure is as common, if not more common, than the subdivision procedure now for that. There is a corollary change required to Article 3, which is on the back side of this page, just to the common note that goes on the plan stating that no building permits can be issued off of this type of minor plat unless and until the Planning Commission later approves a subdivision plan or a development plan for that property. And that, then, is the vehicle by which permits can be issued. If the commission is inclined to initiate this today, we'll have a full staff report for you at your next set of committee meetings at the beginning of April. And then we'll proceed to schedule a public hearing on it that's required either that month or at a later time if the commission wishes. I'd be glad to answer any questions about this. We do appreciate you considering the initiation of this possible change to our subregs. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Questions for Mr. Salley? Comments? If not, yep, motion. Mr. Chairman, move initiation of the major and minor, what do you call this? Text amendment. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Plumlee for the initiation of the tax amendment regarding major and minor classes of subdivision. Please vote when it comes up. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other staff items? I don't think so. Audience items? Doesn't seem like anyone's there. so at this point in time Mr. Duncan did mention a closed session. We need a motion and a vote to go into closed session. Mr. Chairman, move that we go into closed session. Do you have the state of purpose? Here it is. Okay, pending for pending litigation. You got it? Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for closed session to discuss pending litigation. Please vote. that motion passes thank you Thank you. in our official meeting. We're out of closed session. So we need a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move that we instruct our neighbor staff not to go forward in the field on the level cell tower or the limit of the middle or whatever it's called. Skyway Towers. Skyway Towers. Motion has been made and seconded not to further an appeal. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Anything else from the commission members? Mr. Duncan? No. See you all next Thursday. Next Thursday. Motion to adjourn. So moved. All moved. Do we have a second? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you.