# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - April 14, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 14, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3931 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3931?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-04-14 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 22,100 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 April 14, 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 addressed 13 agenda items. The Commission took 24 votes during the session and heard 3 public comments. Of the 13 agenda items considered, 11 were approved and 1 was postponed. The approved items included several residential and commercial development projects: Hamburg Place Community Phase II (West Wind), Lexmark International (formerly IBM), Patchen Wilkes Townhomes and Unit 2, Kingston Hall Unit 1 Lot 22, Kokernot & Riggs, Schroyer Property Lots 3 & 4, Greendale Hills Unit 2-C, Adams Property in Cadentown Lots 3 & 4, Field and Main, and Goodwin Acres Lots 31-34. The Commission also approved two amendments to the planning code: Amendment to Article 4-4-D1 and Amendment to Articles 2-3B and 3-5B. The Humana, Inc. project for St. Joseph East Expansion was postponed. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Frank Penn, Bill Wilson, Karen Mundy, Patrick Brewer, Joe Smith, James Duncan, Bill Sallee, Barbara Rackers, Tom Martin, Cheryl Gallt, Kelly Hunter, Dave Jarman, Denice Bullock, Hillard Newman, Casey Kaucher, Captain Greg Lengal, Lieutenant Joshua Thiel, Tracy Jones, and Andrea Brown. **Absent:** David Drake. **Late:** Patrick Brewer. ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during this meeting passed unanimously with no opposing votes or abstentions. **Minutes and Postponements** [timestamp: 00:03:40–00:08:33] The meeting began with approval of minutes from March 10, 2016, moved by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Ms. Richardson (9–0). Four development plan items were postponed: DP 2016-19 (Interchange Service Center, Lot 8B) to May 12, 2016 (10–0); DP 2016-39 (Wynn Dale Subdivision) to April 28, 2016 (10–0); DP 2016-12 (Loudon Park Addition, Block 2, Lots 3–10) to May 12, 2016 (8–0); and DP 2016-29 (Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169) to May 12, 2016 (10–0). **Consent Agenda and Major Approvals** [timestamp: 00:16:16–01:53:23] The Consent Agenda was approved excluding DP 2016-27 (10–0). Plan 2016-29P (Hamburg Place Community, Phase II) was approved with 8 conditions (10–0). Plan 2016-16F (Lexmark International, Inc.) was approved with revised staff conditions (10–0), along with an associated waiver (10–0) and DP 2016-20 (10–0). Plan 2016-26F (Patchen Wilkes Townhomes & Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2) was approved with 11 revised conditions (10–0). Plan 2016-27F (Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 22) was approved with a waiver and 13 conditions (10–0). Plan 2008-129F (Kokernot & Riggs) was reapproved with added conditions (10–0). DP 2016-27 (Schroyer Property, Lots 3 & 4) was approved with 19 conditions (10–0). DP 2016-28 (Humana, Inc.) was continued for two weeks (10–0). DP 2016-30 (Greendale Hills, Unit 2-C) was approved with 14 revised conditions (10–0). DP 2016-34 (Adams Property, Cadentown, Lots 3 & 4) was approved with revised conditions (10–0), along with an associated waiver (10–0). DP 2016-38 (Field and Main) was approved with 12 revised conditions (10–0). **Final Approvals and Adjournment** [timestamp: 02:24:56–02:41:20] Plan 2016-25C (Goodwin Acres, Lots 31–34 Consolidation Plan) was approved without conditions (10–0). Performance bonds and letters of credit for April 14, 2016 were approved (10–0). Two substantive regulatory amendments were approved: SRA 2016-1, extending preliminary plan life to five years (10–0), and SRA 2016-2, reducing minimum lot size for non-building plats (10–0). The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote (10–0). ## Public Comment Three members of the public provided comments during the meeting. **Janet Cabaniss** [timestamp: 00:05:55] asked about the postponement request for DP 2016-39: Wynn Dale Subdivision, seeking clarification on whether the postponement was for only two weeks and confirming that the hearing date would be April 28, 2016. **Butch Schroyer** [timestamp: 01:02:04] expressed concern about losing an access point across the Schroyer Property. He requested a delay to allow time to resolve the access issue with the applicant. **Jeff Morgan** [timestamp: 01:45:24] spoke in support of the Field and Main development plan, stating that it was well thought out and had community backing. ## Contested Items **Approval of Schroyer Property, Lots 3 & 4** Public comment raised concerns about the loss of an access point across the property. This sparked a heated discussion between the Commission and the applicant regarding the feasibility of maintaining the access point. The applicant argued that the access point was no longer required, while community members opposed this position. The disagreement centered on whether the property's development should preserve existing access routes despite the applicant's assertion that such access was unnecessary. **Approval of Goodwin Acres Consolidation Plan** A procedural dispute arose over the classification of the property. Staff recommended disapproval of the consolidation plan, citing ambiguity about whether the property constituted a single lot or four separate lots. However, the Commission ultimately approved the plan after hearing conflicting testimony from both the applicant and the title attorney. The disagreement reflected uncertainty in the property's legal status and how that status should affect the consolidation approval process. ## Hamburg Place Community, Phase II (West Wind) (AMD) The Planning Commission considered Plan 2016-29P, a preliminary subdivision plan for the Hamburg Place Community, Phase II (West Wind) project. [timestamp: 00:17:15] **Proposal Overview** The application proposed revisions to the street cross-section of Flying Ebony Drive and expansion of lots across a creek within the development. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the plan subject to eight conditions. Key requirements included: - Stormwater easement provisions - Barrier requirements at the end of the road **Key Speakers** Mr. Martin and Matt Carter participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the preliminary subdivision plan for Hamburg Place Community, Phase II (West Wind). ## Lexmark International, Inc. (FKA: IBM) (AMD) The Planning Commission reviewed Plan 2016-16F, a final record plat and development plan for Lexmark International, Inc. [timestamp: 00:23:08] **Presentation and Key Issues** The agenda item involved consideration of a final record plat and development plan for the property. A notable aspect of the proposal was a request for a waiver to allow subdivision prior to the completion of public infrastructure. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the plan, contingent upon revised conditions. The recommended conditions included: - Designation of streets within the development as private streets - Provisions for sewer maintenance **Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Sally, Mr. Martin, and Captain Hallani. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved Plan 2016-16F for Lexmark International, Inc. (FKA: IBM) (AMD). ## Patchen Wilkes Townhomes & Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2 (AMD) **Plan 2016-26F** The Planning Commission reviewed a final subdivision plan for Patchen Wilkes Townhomes & Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2 (AMD) [timestamp: 00:39:57]. The proposal involved creating one lot from a remnant of a farm. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the plan, subject to 11 conditions. A key determination made during staff review was that the 30% infrastructure report was not required for this project. **Outcome** The plan was approved by the Planning Commission. ## Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 22 The Planning Commission reviewed Plan 2016-27F, a final record plat for a commercial lot located in the ED zone. [timestamp: 00:44:50] **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff presented the final record plat and recommended approval with a waiver for public improvements and exactions to be determined at the final development plan stage. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Jarman, Mr. Martin, and Dick Murphy. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the final record plat for Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 22. ## Kokernot & Riggs The Planning Commission reviewed Plan 2008-129F, a reapproval of a 2008 final record plat for a small infill property. [timestamp: 00:54:50] **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff presented the reapproval request and recommended approval with added conditions. The conditions addressed three key areas: tree protection, capacity assurance, and public right-of-way requirements. **Key Speakers** Mr. Martin and Justin Drury participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the reapproval of Plan 2008-129F with the recommended conditions. ## Schroyer Property, Lots 3 & 4 **Development Plan DP 2016-27** The Planning Commission reviewed a development plan for the Schroyer Property, Lots 3 & 4, which proposed a restaurant with parking [timestamp: 01:00:27]. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Jacob Walburn and Butch Schroyer presented the development plan to the Commission. **Public Comment and Concerns** During the public comment period, a concern was raised regarding the loss of an access point as a result of the proposed development. This prompted discussion among the Commission members about the feasibility of maintaining the access point. **Outcome** The development plan was approved. ## Humana, Inc. (St. Joseph East Expansion) (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2016-28 The Planning Commission reviewed a development plan for Humana, Inc. involving expansion at the St. Joseph East location. [timestamp: 01:17:02] **Proposal Overview** The project included the following components: - Expansion of parking facilities - Addition of a maintenance building - Improvement of loading docks **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Southall and Mr. Salley. **Outcome** The Planning Commission postponed consideration of this development plan. The item was continued due to unresolved conditions and a late submittal of materials. ## Greendale Hills, Unit 2-C The Planning Commission reviewed a multifamily development plan for Greendale Hills, Unit 2-C (DP 2016-30) during this meeting. [timestamp: 01:28:14] **Presentation and Key Speakers** Mr. Martin and Rory Cayley were the key speakers on this agenda item, presenting the development proposal to the Commission. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the development plan subject to 14 conditions. These conditions addressed several aspects of the project, including emergency access requirements and sinkhole use provisions. **Issues Reviewed** The Planning Commission's review focused on two primary areas of concern: - Stormwater management - Pedestrian connectivity **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the Greendale Hills, Unit 2-C development plan. ## Adams Property, Cadentown, Lots 3 & 4 **Identifier:** DP 2016-34 The Planning Commission reviewed a development plan for the Adams Property located in Cadentown, covering Lots 3 & 4. The item was presented by Mr. Martin and Dick Murphy [timestamp: 01:35:57]. **Proposal** The development plan proposed two apartment buildings on the subject property. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the development plan with revised conditions. Additionally, staff recommended approval of a waiver for Campbell Lane termination. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the development plan for the Adams Property, Cadentown, Lots 3 & 4. ## Field and Main The Planning Commission reviewed a redevelopment plan for a bank and retail space located at Field and Main (DP 2016-38) [timestamp: 01:48:03]. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff presented the redevelopment proposal and recommended approval subject to 12 conditions. Key adjustments included requirements for a private dumpster and modifications to the drive-through configuration. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the redevelopment plan. ## Goodwin Acres, Lots 31-34 **Plan 2016-25C** The Planning Commission reviewed a consolidation plat for Goodwin Acres, Lots 31-34 [timestamp: 01:55:01]. The proposal involved consolidating four two-acre lots into two four-acre lots. **Staff Recommendation and Concerns** Staff recommended disapproval of the consolidation plat, citing a property versus lot definition issue as the basis for their recommendation. **Commission Discussion and Decision** Despite the staff's recommendation against approval, the Planning Commission voted to approve the consolidation plat. Key participants in the discussion included Mr. Salley, Wayne Goins, and Eric Ridd. **Outcome** The consolidation plat for Goodwin Acres, Lots 31-34 was approved by the Planning Commission. ## Amendment to Article 4-4-D1 The Planning Commission considered a text amendment to Article 4-4-D1 regarding the extension of preliminary subdivision plan timelines [timestamp: 02:26:32]. **Proposal** The amendment proposed extending the life of preliminary subdivision plans from three years to five years. This change was intended to align the preliminary subdivision plan timeline with existing zoning ordinance timelines, creating consistency across the regulatory framework. **Outcome** The amendment was approved by the Planning Commission. **Key Participants** Mr. Salley was the primary speaker on this agenda item. ## Amendment to Articles 2-3B and 3-5B The Planning Commission considered an amendment to Articles 2-3B and 3-5B during this meeting [timestamp: 02:30:16]. **Proposal** The amendment proposed two key changes: * Reducing the minimum lot size for non-building plats from 10 acres to 1 acre * Allowing final development plans to replace final record plats **Discussion** Mr. Salley presented the amendment to the Commission. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the amendment to Articles 2-3B and 3-5B. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of minutes from March 10, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2016-19: Interchange Service Center, Lot 8B to May 12, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2016-39: Wynn Dale Subdivision to April 28, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Postponement of DP 2016-12: Loudon Park Addition, Block 2, Lots 3-10 to May 12, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2016-29: Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169 (YMCA Property) to May 12, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items, excluding DP 2016-27: Schroyer Property - **Plan 2016-29P** — passed (10-0): Approval of Hamburg Place Community, Phase II (West Wind) with 8 conditions - **Plan 2016-16F** — passed (10-0): Approval of Lexmark International, Inc. (FKA: IBM) (AMD) with revised staff conditions - **Waiver for Plan 2016-16F** — passed (10-0): Approval of waiver for Lexmark International, Inc. (FKA: IBM) (AMD) - **DP 2016-20** — passed (10-0): Approval of Lexmark International, Inc. (FKA: IBM) (AMD) Development Plan with revised staff conditions - **Plan 2016-26F** — passed (10-0): Approval of Patchen Wilkes Townhomes & Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2 (AMD) with 11 revised conditions - **Plan 2016-27F** — passed (10-0): Approval of Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 22 with waiver and 13 conditions - **Plan 2008-129F** — passed (10-0): Reapproval of Kokernot & Riggs with added conditions - **DP 2016-27** — passed (10-0): Approval of Schroyer Property, Lots 3 & 4 with 19 conditions - **DP 2016-28** — passed (10-0): Continuance of Humana, Inc. (St. Joseph East Expansion) (AMD) for two weeks - **DP 2016-30** — passed (10-0): Approval of Greendale Hills, Unit 2-C with 14 revised conditions - **DP 2016-34** — passed (10-0): Approval of Adams Property, Cadentown, Lots 3 & 4 with revised conditions - **Waiver for DP 2016-34** — passed (10-0): Approval of waiver for Adams Property, Cadentown, Lots 3 & 4 - **DP 2016-38** — passed (10-0): Approval of Field and Main with 12 revised conditions - **Plan 2016-25C** — passed (10-0): Approval of Goodwin Acres, Lots 31-34 Consolidation Plan - **Performance Bond Letter of Credit** — passed (10-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit for April 14, 2016 - **SRA 2016-1** — passed (10-0): Approval of Amendment to Article 4-4-D1 to extend preliminary plan life to five years - **SRA 2016-2** — passed (10-0): Approval of Amendment to Articles 2-3B and 3-5B to reduce minimum lot size for non-building plats - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Adjournment of meeting --- ## Full transcript The End Hello, hey Joe, you wanna give it a go? You said it up to go, I want you to ask you, no My voice rang all that was back on your mind On a last sad machine, where he started to free Gitchy, gitchy, ya-ya, ya-ya Gitchy, gitchy, ya-ya, here Oh, I'm ready, my mother Will you touch with me this evening? Will you touch with me? Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Living his brave life of life But when he turns off the screen Oh, memories keep More, more, more Kitsy, kitsy, ya-ya-ya-ya-ya Kitsy, kitsy, ya-ya-ya-ya Mosa-topo-la-ta-ya-ya Good afternoon. If everyone will take their seats, we'll get started. Good afternoon. Thank you. It is April 14th. I will call this meeting to order. First on the agenda are approval of minutes from March 10th, 2016. These have been emailed to commission members for review. I have not heard of any corrections or changes. If there are any, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Yes, Mr. Chairman, move approval of March 10th meeting, or minutes. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Richardson. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Please come forward if you have any postponements or withdrawals. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Abby Jones, Abby Jones Consulting. We are requesting postponement for DP 2016-19, which is on page 5 of your agenda. That's located at 2211 Elkhorn Road. How much of a postponement would you like, Ms. Jones? 30 days, please. 30 days, okay. That would be May the 12th, I believe. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a 30-day postponement to April to May the 14th for DP 2016-19. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of DP 2016-19 for one month, May 12th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Ms. Jones. Others? Yes, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. I'd like to postpone on page 11, item Q, DP 2016-39, Wendell Subdivision, located at 1580 Higby Mill Road. We request a two-week postponement. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Yes, ma'am. Did you say two weeks? That's what he's asking for. Two weeks. And the commission hearings would be at 14 to this day, right? 28? Yes, that would, yes, ma'am, it would be the 28th of April. I wasn't expecting that. Okay. I'm kind of captain, Stonewall Community Association. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this request? Commission members? Yes, sir? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for a two-week postponement of DP 2016-34, Wendell Subdivision. Thank you. Do we have a second? Oh, 39, I'm sorry. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement for two weeks until April the 28th. Please vote. Motion passes. Mr. Carter, please stay in touch with the neighborhood on this. We will. Thank you, sir. Other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Mark McCain, I want to direct your attention to DP. What page are you on, Mark? I'm sorry. Page? I'm sorry, page four. Okay, thank you. We've got several pages. DP 2016-12, Loudon Park Edition, I'd like to request postponement to the May 12th meeting. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement to DP 2016-12. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for postponement for, I'm sorry, you said one month? Yes. Yes, one month. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Staff, do you have anything? Yes, sir. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Staff would like to direct your attention to page 7 of your agenda. Item G, DP 2016-29, Tuscany Unit 1, Lot 169 of the YMCA property. This is property located at 2681 Old Rosebud Road. We have received a written request from the applicant's engineer for a one-month postponement. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, that would be until May 12th as well. Yes, ma'am. Move postponement of DP 2016-29, testing unit 1 to May 12th. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement for one month of DP 2016-29. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, we'll take the remaining items. Oh, no, wait a second. We've got a consent agenda. I'm sorry. Which hopefully we'll take care of with you. Mr. Salady, would you like to walk us through the consent agenda? Gladly, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. You do have a lengthy agenda today, but also a fairly lengthy consent agenda I'm glad to report. The first item on your consent agenda is a final subdivision plan recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. It appears on page 3, item D, of your meeting agenda, Plan 2016-28F, an amended final subdivision plat for the Sebastian property, Unit 1, Section 3. This property is located at 2922 Peaks Mill Drive. There is also one final subdivision plan recommended for reapproval by your staff. It is the next item on your meeting agenda, page 3, item E, Plan 2015-1F, Denton Farm, Inc., Unit 1G, Block J, Block 32 amended. This is for property at 493 Weston Park. The next item on your consent agenda appears on page 4, item A of your meeting agenda. There is a typo. This is a development plan recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. It is DP 2012-89, New Market Property Phase 1, Unit 10. This property has an address of 1501 Deerhaven Lane, a portion of. Mr. Chairman, the staff has received the required affidavit for the posting of a sign on this property, and also the staff has provided the commission with the necessary findings for your consideration of this plan, entitled New Market Property Phase 1, Unit 10. This is at your place. The remaining items are development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee, the first of which is on page 6, item E of your agenda, DP 2016-27, the Schroyer property, lots 3 and 4. This is for property with an address of 1009 and 1017 Wellington Way. The staff would note we have received one letter from a citizen on this plan. On page 8, item I, this development plan is on your consent agenda, DP 2016-31, Manowar Unit 2A, Section 2, Lot A2, an amended final development plan for property at 1973 Bryant Road. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 8, item J, DP 2016-32, the guest property Unit 8, an amended final development plan at 4115 Sperling Drive. Mr. Chairman, this item also requires the posting of a sign, and the staff has received the required affidavit for that. Also, let the Commission make a finding, and you have been provided a memorandum from Mr. Martin regarding the compliance of this plan with the Expansionary Master Plan. On page 8, item K, this plan is on your consent agenda. DP 2016-33, an amended final development plan for Quantrell Realty Company for property at 2228 Young Drive and a portion of 1440 East New Circle Road. On page 9, item M, this plan is on your consent agenda. DP 2016-35, Hamburg East, lot 4B amended. This involves property with an address of 2500 Polo Club Boulevard. Once again, Mr. Chairman, the staff has received the affidavit indicating the sign has been properly posted on the property, and also you have been supplied a memorandum from Ms. Galt with today's date regarding the compliance of this plan with your expansionary master plan. The next item on your meeting agenda also appears on the consent agenda. DP 2016-36, page 10, item N, Fritz Farm, also known as Summit Lexington, an amended final development plan for property at 4100 Nicholsville Road. Page 10, item O, DP 2016-37, the townhomes at Jefferson Street. This plan is on your consent agenda for property at 500-512 Maryland Avenue. On page 11, item R, DP 2016-40, Miller-Bird Commercial Subdivision Unit 1B, Block B, Lots 9-18, an amended final development plan on your consent agenda for property at 198 Moore Drive. Again, Mr. Chairman, the staff has provided the commission with a report regarding this plan's compliance with the limitations for a flex space project, which is required to be reviewed by the commission. The final item on your consent agenda is also the next item on your agenda, page 12, item S, DP 2016-41, an amended final development plan for the Miller-Bird Commercial Subdivision, Unit 1B, Block C, Blots 18 through 25. This is for property with an address of 2551 Regency Road. And finally, we have also prepared the necessary report for the Commission's review for your approval of this plan under the flex space project limitations. Mr. Chairman, at this time the Commission can consider approving all of these items as they're listed on your agenda, as recommended either by your subdivision committee or by the staff. That would be unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience today, or one of the applicants would ask you to remove one of these items to allow it to be further discussed later in your meeting today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience wish to come forward? remove one of these items to be heard Commission I'm Butch Schroyer I'm here about DP 2016-27 the Schroyer property that's under consideration for development plan I'd like to be heard or delayed for 30 days so we can talk to the developer I'm sorry you said have it be heard or I'll contest it or have it just delayed for 30 days so we can talk to the architect about the plan. Is the applicant here on this one? Come forward. He's asking for it to be heard or postponed. Do you have any interest? I think our preference would be to be heard today. We want to consent agenda item, so I understand we might be pulled, but we'd like to be heard. Okay, thank you. Therefore, it's DP 2016-27, Stroll Real Property. It's on page 6, item E. Will be taken off the agenda. Any other requests for any of the items on the consent agenda to be heard today? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion with the exception of the Stroll Real Property. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda. removing page 6 item E, DP 2016-27, Sawyer Property. All other items be... Noting the findings. And noting the findings on... Okay, motions for approval. Of the remaining items, noting the findings, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Please vote on the consent agenda when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. It did remove a lot. We still have several to go. We will start on page one at the bottom of the page. It's plan 2016-29P, Hamburg Place Community. You do have a revision. That's the reason it did come off the consent agenda on a golden rod sheet of paper that is before you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this first item is a preliminary subdivision plan. It is Plan 2016-29P. It is Hamburg Place Community, Phase 2, also known as West Wind. This is a residential area out in the Hamburg development. Here we have old rosebud as it has been extended from Sir Barton. You may recall over here we have an assisted living facility in this location, and Tuscany would be in that direction. Here we have fine ebony that intersects with starshoot, and of course starshoot goes out to Sir Barton Way, and this has largely been a developed residential area with single-family homes. and townhouses. This particular plan has been filed for two principal reasons, that being to take these existing lots and expand them into a little remnant piece. There's a little remnant piece across this creek that's never actually been platted. It's a very difficult piece. It had no access. It was part of the old farm, and they have, after several years of trying to decide what they could do with it without building a road across the creek and doing additional work. They wish to expand these lots to pick up that remnant. So they're going to be creating larger, very long, linear lots in this location. They will cross the creek. We've highlighted there is floodplain on this property, so they'll be limited to buildable area here, and then across the creek There will be limited areas as well in the rear of the property. The other significant aspect of this plan is they need to amend the cross section, the width of Flying Ebony, which was going to flare out for this intersection. They're going to bring it back to match the existing width and the existing cross section. This is being done due to a problem with a stormwater easement, but actually it's the lack. of a stormwater easement in this area, and they're having to adjust the road to cross the creek and join here with Old Rosebud. You can see the conditions on your revised plan, and there are two conditions that we'd like to bring to your attention. Number seven is document that the intersection of Flying Ebony Drive at Old Rosebud will meet the 80-degree limitation of the subregs prior to certification. And then number eight, and this was discussed at your subdivision committee, you may recall, denote that a barrier shall be erected at the termination of Fine Ebony Drive. It's designed to the approval of the divisions of engineering and or traffic engineering. And that's being done because there's different ways to put up a barricade. There's also certain things that are acceptable under the uniform traffic sign code and that sort of thing. So we just wanted to be sure those two divisions could speak to what barrier would be appropriate. And that is necessary because you may recall that although the right-of-way has been dedicated in this area, Old Rosebud actually hasn't been constructed in that area. So we wouldn't want people to inadvertently drive over into an area that has yet to be completed. So it's a safety measure that we're recommending. and with that staff is recommending approval of this plan. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, again my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. We have read the eight conditions and we're in agreement with those and ask for your approval at this time. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Carter? Anyone else in the audience? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Thank you. Let me ask, since traffic and fire is huddling back there, is it over this plan? Are you all okay with this? Thumbs up. Very good. All right. If there's no other questions, thank you, Mr. Carter. I can turn it over to the commission and close this part of the hearing, open it up for a motion and or discussion. Mr. Chair? Yes. I'm going to make a move for approval of Plan 2016-29P with the eight noted conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second? Ms. Plumlee. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2016-29P with the revised eight conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Moving to page two, it's Lexmark International Incorporated, Plan 2016-16F. You do have 30% infrastructure reports. You've got a Royal Springs report from the Protection Committee. You've got revised conditions on a vanilla sheet, and I think we're going to take the DP as well, which would have revised conditions on a pink sheet that is on page 5, I believe, of your agenda. However, as I said, we do have revised conditions, which is on a pink sheet for the development plan. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Because of my relationship with this case, I have to refuse myself. Okay. Thank you. We've got a vanilla sheet of paper for revisions with subdivision plans and a pink sheet of paper for the revisions on the development plan. We do have other papers. We've got a waiver request as well as an infrastructure report and a letter from the Royal Springs Water Supply Protection Committee. I'm sure Mr. Saleh will walk us through every bit of it. No, sir, but it is a pleasure to be here and walk you through part of it. Okay. I'm here for the item on page two, item A of your meeting agenda, substituting for Mr. Hunter this afternoon who's lost his voice. This is the final record plat portion of the application. As you've mentioned, there also is a waiver associated with this that Mr. Martin will present and a final development plan proposed that Ms. Galt will present to you. The subdivision plat to orient the commission is for land that is south of New Circle Road and on the east side of Newtown Pike. The area that we're looking at is immediately south of the main Lexmark plant building. So that building is approximately here at its southern boundary. Well to the top of this drawing would be the interchange with New Circle Road. and the property does skirt Loudoun Avenue at just a couple of hundred feet of frontage at its southernmost point. Loudoun then continues in this direction and has an intersection with Newtown at this scale just off this drawing. The property is here. It is bounded by the YMCA at this location and by the Health Department property just to the west of that. approximately here. And this is a proposal to create 10 lots out of what is currently one lot. Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. And as you'll see at the development plan, this largest lot is really the driver of this entire proposal. There are some access easements through this area. There is a signalized exit from the Lexmark property to Newtown Pike just off this plat here, and there is some talk that this signal will be relocated southward to line with a brand new access easement that is proposed here. That will tie in to an existing series of accesses through the property at this location, some of which, as you'll see from the development plan, are proposed to be improved. There is another corridor proposed to connect to those access drives to Loudon Avenue. Again, another item you'll see in just a moment on the development plan. Your subdivision committee initially proposed postponement of this record plat in that the 30% infrastructure report had not been submitted. That is a prerequisite before the Planning Commission reviews major subdivisions such as this and approves it. As you've been supplied, that has been submitted, and now procedurally it is in order. You'll find the staff recommendation on the vanilla-colored sheet has moved, therefore, to an approval recommendation for this plat. The first eight conditions are your typical sign-offs. Number nine, delete section information all lots. It is anticipated that these ten lots will be recorded in two sections, including the largest lot in the initial section. This is partly due to the fact, again, that this is driving the proposal and the fact that not all of these lots are currently served either by access easements or sewers. So that will be part of the waiver report you'll hear in just a moment. But we do anticipate an initial section will be recorded, and time will pass, improvements will be made on the property, and then other lots will be created in Section 2 of the development. That isn't exactly worked out at this time, but that is the concept the staff's been operating under. There has been a conflict with the legacy trail, which does traverse a portion of the property with the new access point. We're recommending under condition 11 that those details be subject to approval by the green space planner for that facility. There will be some slight modifications where that is to cross this new access easement. Number 13, the discussion item is removed just by denoting the review by the Royal Spring Aquifer Wellhead Protection Committee. And a new condition 14 to relabel the access easements as private streets with one exception. This is currently an access easement and is not proposed for much alteration at all. Staff has no problem with this remaining an access easement. We would prefer that these new facilities and upgraded facilities, though, be called private streets instead of an access easement. You've not been provided with any findings as to why they ought to be easements instead of streets. That would be our preference. I'd be glad to answer any questions about the plat before you hear from the other staff members this afternoon on this development. Questions for Mr. Sally? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Well, I'm not sure what else to say. Bill's kind of covered everything. This is the development plan, as Bill was saying, that this is the proposal for a building for trucks to come in and out. They do have it in phases. They have future phases marked on here. That is one of the issues on one of the conditions we have here. We just want to know a little bit more about the phasing of this. We have 16 conditions. The first 11 conditions are our typical sign-offs, and then just a couple cleanup conditions, including the Georgetown Aquifer note. Other than that, that's about it. Any questions? Questions from Ms. Galt on the development plan? No? Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, there is a waiver that is associated with this development. It has been, of course, handed out to you for your review. The key to the waivers is, of course, that they would like to subdivide the property prior to the construction of required public infrastructure, as well as the access needed to some of the lots that they wish to create. And again, they have an access easement or a private street system that they're proposing. You can see it better. It's outlined here on the development plan. for you, as well as that aspect, significant completion aspect that applies to the roads. They also, of course, and you've heard this one frequently now, it's the provision of public sewer that is required under your subregs to lots that cannot be done prior to the creation of some of these lots. Now, what we've highlighted here for you is an existing private line. It's an old eight-inch lines been there for many years its condition is relatively unknown it's very old and here in this location on lot three it's running under this building those conditions alone preclude the public acceptance of that line so as one aspect of the review of this waiver we are recommending that they specify on this plan maintenance of this private sewer line. And you can see these are the lots. Lots 1, 3, 4, and 7 will all be served by private sewer. The remaining lots on this plat, which will be recorded as the second section, will have public sewer at the time that they are recorded. Staff is also recommending that the easements be designated as private streets and constructed to private street standards as required by your land subdivision regulations. This will facilitate any future dedication of these streets as public streets should this owner or future owners wish to dedicate these streets as public streets. There is a standard review process that governs that, and ultimately it would have to be approved by the Urban County Council before they're accepted as public streets. But private streets are built to public standards. Due to the heavy traffic, this is an industrial development, and their stated desire to sometime in the future dedicate these streets, we are recommending they be designated as private streets and constructed to public standards. We are recommending approval of the waiver. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes. So since these are private streets, there would not be a need for any bonding, right? Not if they build them to the private street centers, no, ma'am. And I did forget one thing I'll quickly mention. Another aspect of the waiver is to a sidewalk. In an industrial development, you're only required a sidewalk on one side of the street. They're asking for a waiver of that in order to utilize the legacy trail. Oh, I apologize. I didn't mention that earlier. But to answer your question, no. No, as long as they build on the standards, they're fine. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you. Captain? Mr. Chairman, my name is Shehat Hallani, and we are in agreement with the staff, and we like this also, the street to be built to public standard, and for now we are in agreement to stay as public, as private street. and with respect to the timing as for the timing, basically the first phase is going to be installing the major infrastructure from the roadway to the sanitary sewers storm sewers, there's a 20 inch water line need to be relocated and the traffic light will be relocated at the new entrance this will be part of phase one and then the first phase also will be this almost 25 acres of trucking company will be constructed and then as the market demand, things start to progress for phase two and if there's need for phase three or something like that. But we are in agreement with the staff on the private street and we ask for an approval. Thank you, Mr. Collardi. Any questions for that? Yeah, I do. Yes, sir. You didn't mention the private sewer line. What's the timing on that? Yes, sir. The sewer line has to stay active until the new sewer line will be installed. The new sewer line is going to be from Loudoun Avenue, go along the newly installed road. It will serve all these lots, which is lot number 4, 7, 5, and building, FUNA building, lot 3, where the source goes underneath it. It will be served when the source gets tested and built it per LFUCG and accepted. Then this private line will be abandoned and the manhole will be filled with concrete and the line will be basically abandoned. Is the private line used now? Yes, sir. The way it is right now, as Laxmark as being one lot, there's force mains that run along this area that drain to a manhole, roughly speaking, in this location. And this manhole runs underneath that building toward Loudon Avenue. So this line will be totally abandoned because it's serving the whole campus after the stores get accepted. Other questions? Sir? Do you anticipate any problem with the legacy trail being able to be used as a sidewalk? The first phase also is going to be a relocation of a portion of the legacy trail here. It's going to be mimic, and this will be relocated first. This area will be fenced, so it does not interrupt the legacy trail. POSAXION FENCING, so it does not interrupt it. But the part that's not going to be fenced is used as sidewalk. You're talking about during construction if it's going to be? I'm talking about whatever I heard him say about the legacy trail, that it would be used in lieu of a sidewalk. That's correct. We are adding, actually, it's shown here. We are adding six feet sidewalk along that area across here that connect to the campus, Lexmark campus. and also we are adding 40 feet of easement for the future expansion for Legacy Trail and our connection to the Legacy Trail is going to be along this access from YMCA and this location and this street here and that street here. So it can be access. I don't know if I understand the question correctly. All right, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Krivins? Yeah, where is it? The lot? I mean, you've got it here on the plat, but you don't have it on the development plan. Is it already developed or what? Northeast corner. The one that's not on that plan. Yeah, that lot. There's a lot on this plat, but it's not shown on the development plan. Oh, yes. This would be on Section 2. There's no plan for it right now. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Colati. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? Questions from the commission for staff or applicant? If not, thank you. I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or motions. motions. There would be three. First for the subdivision plan, second for the waiver, and then third for the development plan. Anyone interested in a motion? Mr. Cravens. I guess I got elected, huh? You did. That's the first. Move approval of Plan 2016-16F and the revised staff recommendation 14. Thank you. The motion has been for approval of the revised conditions of Plan 2016-16F, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Any discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. And then for the waiver associated with the subdivision plan. I move approval of the waiver for the findings by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the development plan on the pink street. Move approval of DP 2016-20, revised staff recommendations. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of DP 2016-20. Lexmark International with the revised 16 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda, on page 2, it's Plan 2016-26F, Patch and Wilkes Townhomes. Patch and Wilkes Unit 2, you do have a revision. It's on a canary yellow sheet of paper. Good afternoon. You can't really miss this one. This is Patch and Wilkes Townhomes. This is out Winchester Road. We have seen the townhomes recently coming in, and they've brought in a record plant to subdivide them into individual lots. This one lot here is what they're trying to create. They're trying to create a lot for the original farmhouse for the farm manager. And so it's going to be cut out of the larger portion of the whole rest of the Patch and Wilkes property. So they're just creating this one lot to keep the house on. With that, we have 11 conditions, first six being our sign-offs, and then we have a couple different cleanup conditions to be made to correct this plan. Do you all have any other comments or questions? Thank you, Ms. Gallup. Questions? Mr. Penn? Did I not hear you say that you've gotten the letter of the 30% infrastructure report? Well, we're not going to – there's no improvements needed on this piece of property. It's not part of the preliminary development plan. We're just cutting out this piece of property out of the original farm. It already has all the improvements needed for the property, for the home. They have access, and they have – Okay. They have an access point already on the property. It's a temporary access firm when they were developing the property. And then they also have their sewer lines, so there's no improvements that are going to be required, and that's why. But I guess my question is, why did we postpone this? Well, we changed the plan. Okay. Because I was President Sudevich, and I remember you postponed because we didn't have this, and now I'm just wondering what happened. What happened was they came in with the townhomes, with that piece of property, and trying to create this lot off the side out of the remaining portion of the property. But the reason we asked for the 30% report is because we had the remaining part of the townhome lots. I remember. It's no longer involved in this, and they're only wanting to create this one lot out of the remnant of the wretchedest of the farm. That's why we didn't need that anymore. Okay, Bill. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. Okay, we have a temporary access to the property. Do we have any idea where the permanent access is going to be? The applicant can probably give you a better answer on that. Okay. Other questions from Ms. Galt? Ms. Mundy, if I could. Ms. Galt's pointing to an access on the front of the property that is shown. It's an easement that will extend across the front. That will be its permanent access. Mr. Barrett, good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Tony Barrett here on behalf of the owner, and Bill McAlpin with Eagle Engineering is here as well. We're in agreement with the revised recommendation. Ask for your approval, and if you have any questions, I can try to help. Questions for Mr. Barrett? No. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Others in the audience that would like to speak on this plan? Seeing none. Any questions from the Commission for anyone? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussions and or motion. Mr. Chair. Go for it. Yes. Move for approval of Plan 2016-26F with the 11 revised conditions. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Ms. Richardson for approval with the revised conditions plan 2016-26L. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Next, at the bottom of page 2, plan 2016-27L, Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 22. continues on page 3. You have a waiver. And I think we have findings as well. No, I'm sorry. We have a 30% infrastructure report with it as well. There's a waiver. We do have a waiver. Yeah, there is a waiver as well. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission this is plan 2016-27F final record plat Kingston Hall, Unit 1 Lot 22. This is for property located at 1150 Providence Place Parkway the subject property is located as you can see along I-75 and 64 here's the Newtown Pike and the interchange this is the existing section Providence Place Parkway here commercial area that now exists. Russell Cave Road lies over here to the east and as you can see Providence Place Parkway is planned to make its way over and connect with Russell Cave. This area is zoned ED Economic Development commercial area and this plat creates this lot 22 here within the ED zone. The subdivision committee had recommended approval subject to the standard sign-off conditions down through number 7. The remaining conditions are cleanup conditions straight from Article 21, requirements for development plans. Condition 11. Discuss whether exactions should be determined through the approval of the vision of planning at the time of final development plan. Normally, we will see exactions posted on an exhibit in Platts. For residential property, this being commercial property and commercial uses, staff feels that it is appropriate to have the exactions moved to such time as the final development plan comes out, and is approved and reviewed and approved. Twelve discuss sanitary sewer service to the proposed lot or the need for a waiver. And in thirteen discuss the timing of public street construction and dedication or need for a waiver. This lot being created, the question is at this time there's a need for a waiver for these requirements of the land subdivision regulations. And Mr. Martin will speak to that waiver request and report. Thank you. Any questions for Dave? Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, there is a waiver request associated with this plan. It is very similar to the IBM, actually, in that they are wishing to create a lot in advance of the required public improvements, public sewer, and in this case as well, a public street that will be serving this development. They wish to coordinate the development of these improvements with the development of this ED lot. and Mr. Jarman is very correct. There's a preliminary development plan that now governs this property. They will have to file a final development plan to develop this property and that's when the exaction agreement with the developer will be required and when the exactions are then paid is when they pull their building permits and they'll pull their building permit off of the development plan for ED property. That's what happens with our commercial properties in the expansion area. They pull permits off development plans. That's where we put the exactions so that they're known to be collected. What's a little interesting in this situation is this lot 22, which on the preliminary plan is actually two lots, so they're selling a larger portion of the property. You can see where it's located because there's more property to the east towards Russell Cave. And then, of course, this is the other unit with the parkway ending approximately in this location. The future pump station is going to be up somewhere in this location. This lot will utilize public sewer that will connect to the pump station down near Stanton Drive and the current one that is currently being used to serve this area. It's been upgraded and can be used for a few more years. until the government is able to build the planned pump station in that area that will serve this area in a much larger part of our community. Providence Parkway is a parkway. It is required by your expansionary master plan. It is an exactable feature. So when it's built by the developer, he can then request credits towards the exactions on the property. So in reviewing this waiver, However, staff has agreed that it is a valid waiver to create this lot. We are recommending that they post full bond for the public sewer construction and the local street construction as well. Because, again, in the unlikely event that Providence Place did get constructed under your EMP and under development plan, But the local street was not. We wouldn't want to have a developer, someone who wants to utilize ED land, very valuable, important land to our community, with the inability to have a local street to serve the development and saying, well, where's my street? So we know that's unlikely. But, again, we're recommending a full bond for the public sewer and this local street. Again, Providence Parkway will have to be included on any final development plan so it can be constructed as well and be a part of the required developers agreement under your expansion plan requirements. I'll be happy to answer any questions for Mr. Martin. Don't see any. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. Rory Kaley and I are here on behalf of the developer, which is one of Dennis Anderson's entities. We're in agreement with what Mr. Martin relayed to you. This is a matter of timing. The entity which is going to be purchasing Lot 22 wishes to start work on their property at the same time that we're doing the public infrastructure, the streets and the sewers. and we do understand the need to bond the sewers and the local street as mr martin mentioned to you so those will be covered and as mr martin mentioned providence parkway is is an exactable item and city collects exaction fees for that as well any questions yeah i do yes mr murphy I will assume then that we'll get a development plan on this fairly soon? Yes. Yeah, Lot 22, yes. Yeah, they have to have a development plan to you before they can do anything. That's what I'm for you, yeah. Any other questions? Not anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Does the Commission have any other questions? I have one for the staff. As far as, obviously you're saying number 11 could be resolved at the time of final development plan 12 and 13, language to remove discuss that provided Planning Commission approves waiver? Yes, sir. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Okay. All right, then. Any other questions from Commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any other discussion and or motion. We would need two, one for the subdivision plan and one for the waiver. He's just hanging out there. Anyone? Yes? Yes, ma'am? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of plan 2016-27 Kingston. Hall, Unit 1, Lot 22, as well as the waiver, including the 13 items as noted by staff, changing the last two to provided that we approve the waiver. Is that too convoluted? And then number 11? And then number 11 can be removed, yes. Removed? Resolved? Resolved. I'm sorry, resolved. Okay. I'm sorry. So motion is for approval with the waiver, Plan 2016-27L for Kingston Hall, with the associated waiver change in 11 to resolve, and 12 and 13 to provide the Planning Commission does approve the waiver, in which it sounds like it's included in the motion. So do we have a second, Ms. Richardson? Yes. Yes, thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval with the waiver change in 11, 12, and 13 to resolve and or approval of the waiver. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Moving to the bottom of page 3, Plan 2008-129F, Coconut and Rigs. This is a reapproval from something that was approved on October 9, 2008. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, We're going from your expansion area to an infill and redevelopment area. Both are vital to our community and its development. We've gone from a very large plan to a very small one. This is a reapproval for a proposed subdivision of a lot. This is an area that is located off of North Broadway and 3rd Street, very close to Transylvania, that is up in this location and, of course, across the street. What is very interesting about this, and back in 2008 it was filed, is Morrill Alley. This is public right-of-way. It's a very old, old alley that was created probably when all this area was created in the late 1800s, early 1900s. It is public right-of-way. So what we have here, in essence, are two buildable lots. They're zoned R2. R2 is a difficult infill and redevelopment zoning, by the way. It is. It's difficult to utilize. It was approved by this body back in 2008. The engineer who was handling it moved on to another job, and it languished. They have recently brought it back to you for re-approval. You can see that your staff is recommending re-approval of the property. We do have a couple of new conditions that we've added, which are standard. A lot of the rules have changed, and that is CAP, capacity assurance approval, prior to certification. the urban forester's approval of tree protection areas and street trees, which are now his responsibility. And that, of course, comes from the building inspector's responsibility since they no longer approve street trees. You can see the conditions are fairly standard conditions for a plat. There's a couple of things that need to be resolved, 12 and 13. that really relates to again the difficulty facing this lot in being developed under the r2 standards in the infill and redevelopment but staff's comfortable they can we can resolve that with the applicant with that i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have any questions for mr martin no thank you anything to add from the applicant Excuse me. Good afternoon. Justin Drury with 2020 Land Surveying. I'm going to be representing Ms. Coker-Knot and taking over, taking this plan through the recertification process. You okay with the added conditions? We are okay with the added conditions. Thank you. Any questions, Mr. Drury? Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, and if there's no questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I move reapproval of Plan 2008-129F with the added conditions from the staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for reapproval with the added conditions. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Drury. Thank you. I think now we move to page 6, destroy your property, DP 2016-27. I guess it does. Yeah. Yes, ma'am. Afternoon. We're on page 6. We're on DP 2016-27 for the Schroyer property, lots 3 and 4. This is a development plan. showing we have a lot here and a lot here. We have a retail restaurant building that is going the total length of the property with parking that is around it. This property is zoned B1. It's at the corner of Wellington and Palomar Center. This is Palomar Shopping Center down here. And we just looked at the Zaxby's and everything right here along Harrodsburg Road. This is the street that we talked about connecting to where the daycare and the Zaxby's are going to go up here. With that, we had 19 conditions. The first eight are sign-off conditions. They are also, the location of the building is very close to the rear property line, so they have asked for variance for the distance, and they're going in front of the Board of Adjustments for this. So we'll find that will be decided at that meeting. So with that, the remaining portion of the conditions are cleanup conditions for this property. Is there anything else I can help you with? Any questions? Ms. Gall? No. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant. We're in agreement with staff's conditions, would request approval. I do know there has been a letter received, and I know that there is someone in the audience that wishes to speak to this case, and if it pleased the commission, I thought it might be appropriate for those concerns to be aired, and then maybe we could address them more directly versus my trying to anticipate. The one thing, I am aware we have read the letter. We received it prior to the meeting today. It has to do with the access located right here. We've discussed that issue with traffic engineering. I don't want to put words in Ms. Coucher's mouth. She can speak for herself. But I would say that we have had productive conversations and are nearing a solution on that. Obviously, any plan would require her sign off that this plan would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare. So I do feel confident we can resolve that outstanding issue. aside from that we are in agreement with staff's recommendation thank you any questions for mr walburn at the moment if not okay others that like to speak on this chairman members of the commission i'm butch schroyer i own the animal care clinic at 3600 Palomar Center Drive. That's adjacent catty corner of this property. We did the original development on this property back when we bought the property in 1988 and did a zone change on it in 2002 as we changed it from AU zoning to P1 zoning at that point in time. During the development plan in 2002, we were required to provide an access road across the property that Song Kim now owns that he has a Taekwondo studio gave us a circle drive, and I'll walk over and show you that, but it gave us an additional egress and access point out of the property through there, and the property has been developed up to this point to continue to maintain some form of alternative egress off the property, and as she just alluded, we're working on a Zaxby's property on my clinic, and we're working on some additional access points, but it's always been traffic's been a big concern for this committee, and I hate to see us lose an access point inside the development plan. We were notified, of course, due to the conditional use. I had no idea that we were even having this meeting until yesterday about a development plan being done. We've got a small one finally having it today. Let me show you where this access point is. This was our development plan we did in 2002. It's on file that shows this portion that I'd like to see maintained in some fashion. Take the microphone with you, Mr. Schor. I can do that, I guess. Wellington, my current clinic sits here. Chase Bank is right here at this point. When we did the development back in 2002 and did the zone change, we were required at that time by the staff and was approved that there would be a circle piece that would come across here, tie in and come back in and tie to Wellington away from this four-way stop. And, of course, we've been awaiting the development of this three-quarter acre. At some point, we would have that. In 2013, they did a zone change on this property with a building that turned out to be not feasible for them to make it happen. And at that time, they abandoned this portion, but they did in that plan at least provide access across the back part of the property and then serpentined us all the way around to eventually come out over here. So it wasn't the original plan, but at least we had access points. So if traffic got backed up here or there was an accident, there was a way to get off this property. So at this point in time, now with what they're showing, they've locked us still back down to the single egress instead of having a dual egress that we've been working on over 15 years on the development. So I've asked them to just extend this so we can send them and work the plan out. They want to proceed forward with it. They need to do some design work. They've got some work to do here anyway, and they've got concerns about elevations and stuff because they want to drop this lot back. We'll be back at the conditional use complaint about the setback next week or two weeks when that goes on, too, because I'm sure Song did not know who owns this property that they're getting ready to shove that building in his face. That's not your all's issue, but it will be one that he'll be contended with. So I would like to make sure in this design they maintain our additional egress point to help us with traffic. That has always been a concern for the committee. And as I told them, I've done at least three different individual traffic studies to support access, and we've always been able to think that was coming. Questions for Mr. Sawyer? Nothing. Let's hear a response from the applicant, and I'll save my questions for later. I'll approach it from two different angles. One, Jason Banks is here with me. He's the engineer for this project. He can speak to the issue that was mentioned regarding elevation change. There's a pretty significant slope here. This property, you're sloping down in this general direction. So the way that this building is envisioned to be built, this lot would, in order to connect to this property, which Mr. Shorra doesn't own, by the way, he sold that property, there would basically have to go five feet above our building. So there's a pretty substantial grade change that Jason can speak to more directly about a technical challenge. From a practical and legal perspective, as the Commission's aware, that's something that's normally imposed through notes or easements if there's going to be cross-access. There is no reciprocal parking and access note or no reciprocal access note applicable to this plan. Now, we've provided planning staff with some plats that go back some time that do show a temporary access easement that does run across the rear of the property. It's specifically noted that it expires or is terminated once Wellington Way extends to the point where that property could be accessed. The reason, as the Commission would understand, is if you don't have road access, you have to have a way to get off of a landlocked parcel. Now that Wellington Way has extended, there's no need for that temporary access easement anymore. I think, while I understand the noble intentions that Mr. Schroer may bring forward, I think what he's, in effect, asking you to do is impose a private access easement across not one but two properties that he no longer controls. The Taekwondo studio is under different ownership now, as is our development. That's essentially what's being asked for here, and the notes simply do not support it. commissions aware developments change over time. This is an area that's been in a state of flux substantially since 2000 and some of the things that are being referenced here. This was a consent agenda plan that your professional staff has recommended for approval. We think it functions well. We think it's more in keeping with the neighborhood. Those of you in subdivision committee will recall that I discussed how this was originally a three-story building and really looked out of place in the neighborhood. We've gone to a one-story building. We think this is an approvable plan. We don't think the access that's envisioned can be accomplished, nor do we think it's required. Thank you. I don't think they envisioned they had to have access. That's why they don't think it can happen. They've not put their heads to it long enough because they just didn't know about it until right before the meeting when I asked for a delay. I'm not saying don't approve the plan overall. I just think they need a delay to try to figure out how to make that work. the temporary access was when i bought the three-quarter acre back when i bought it it was landlocked because wellington way was not there and we could not parcel that piece of property off it had nothing to do with the what was done the plans in 2002 when we were required to develop that access it is not it's been in your all's notes and plans over the year and i don't have those because i don't have just don't have them but we should be able to go pull them of planning and zoning when it was originally pulled in 2002 that we were required to put that in and it should have been carried through through every piece the only additional development that was done was in 2013 when they put the three-story building on and they still maintained an access force it wasn't what was originally but an access was there now they've gone back and changed the plan again and they're eliminating the access i just want an access at some point so we don't lose what i was required to provide in 2002 when i originally developed it thank you mr feller Staff, any added input? Comments? Traffic? Want to weigh into this in any sort of way? Well, she's coming in. I do have one question for the staff on this. Under condition number 19, it says denote Board of Adjustment Approval date for dimensional variance. that sounds like it has occurred. And Mr. Schroyer was indicating that there was a variance going before the Board of Adjustment here, like the end of this month. It's scheduled for the end of this month. We just want to make sure that we have that date on the plan. So it hasn't been approved yet. Right, it has not been approved yet. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. I can address the access concerns. I had brought it up at subdivision committee, and I have had conversations with the applicant. My specific concern is the location of the entrance off of Palomar Center Drive and the proximity that is to Wellington Way. Our standards, we usually want like minimum 50 feet from the intersection. the applicant i have discussed other design options that i think we can work with ultimately if i'm not satisfied i won't approve i won't sign off and approve the plan so i don't have a problem with i think the applicant is comfortable with my concerns and if they can't meet them then we'll be back here do do you have any information as far as the temporary access or the access that Mr. Schorier was I do not. Okay. Any other questions from the commission? No. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Questions from the commission on anything? Yes, sir. Is staff still recommending that we go forward with this given what we have? Okay. Commitment with a nod? Yeah, he said yes. Okay. I guess, as I've got the mic, I'm concerned about, I'm not concerned about traffic because I think Casey will do what she says she'll do. But I am concerned about this access season and notes on the plan and this type of thing. And, yes, if you'd like to address that, I'd like to hear that. Certainly. What I'm going to do, if it's okay with Mr. Salee, is actually borrow this because it's a pretty big piece of paper. I'd like to put it on. There are actually two plats, one underneath that I'll pull off. To illustrate what we're talking about here, here is the temporary access easement. To orient you, this is our development lot here and here. These are what we've purchased. So the access easement doesn't actually run across our property, but it's an access easement to nowhere. But it does say, see note 9. And when we go to note 9 on this plan here, the 23-foot temporary access easement along with the property line of lots 2 and 3 serving lot 4 shall be released by owners of lot 4 when proposed Wellington Way is extended so as to permit direct access to lot 4. We are the owner of lot 4. It now has access to Wellington Way. that easement has been extinguished. I'm not aware of any other note or anything on any development plan that would have required us to maintain access to my knowledge. This plat was updated in 2005, I believe, slightly amended, and carries forward the same note. If that addresses that issue. One final comment. Just a comment on that temporary easement was designed to give access to a landlocked piece. It had nothing to do with the traffic components that we had when we did the zone change. We're not arguing that there's an easement on that property. We're arguing that the Planning Commission required an access across that for egress, and it maintains through several notes the fact that he's not aware of it does not mean it does not exist. I simply want to have time and a delay here, not to squelch it, but just to delay it for 30 days so all these things can come to appropriate light. Okay. The landlocked piece of property that you were referring to, where is that? It's lot four. Okay. That actually acquired and came into existence in 1993 when we bought that piece of property and Wellington Way had not been extended, so the easement is not what is in play. We know the easement no longer exists. we're arguing is that planning laid out a plan long ago that gave us an egress point that we are now losing. Even the zone change that it did in 2013, it still maintains some form, and this plan takes it totally away. Okay. Thank you, sir. One last time, any questions from the Commission? If not, we'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. And, you know, at this point, I'm going to say that it seems like the note was meant to be temporary and meant to provide access to a landlocked piece of property that, unfortunately, no longer is landlocked. It has access. So anybody else? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I move approval of DP 2016-27 Schroeder property, lots 3 and 4, with the conditions as listed by the staff. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Penn for approval of DP 2016-27 with the 19 noted conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Schroeder. Down at the bottom of the page, DP 2016-28, Humana Incorporated. It follows over on to page 7. We have 23 noted conditions. This is Development Plan 2016-28, Humana, Inc., also known as St. Joseph East Expansion, and amended final development plan for a property located at 150 North Eagle Creek Drive. The subject property is located alongside Richmond Road. Here we have North Eagle Creek Drive running over to Blazer Parkway. It is the St. Joseph East Hospital property. The purpose of this development plan is to add parking in several areas. Here, here, over here, to improve the loading docks here, at a Healy stop over here or to Richmond Roadside for which there will be a port of adjustment case and also to add a 40 by 60 foot maintenance building here. There's quite a lot going on with this development plan large piece of property. The subdivision committee after review had recommended approval of this plan subject to the standard conditions down through number 10. We do have some cleanup conditions here, 11, 12, on through number 22 that, again, most of them can be found. They come requirements out of Article 21. Condition 13, again, relates to the BOA approval of the HeLa stop, a case that will be pending. The final condition, Condition 23 discussed potential improvements to pedestrian access from North Eagle Creek Drive and Blazer Parkway. Along here and over here. The applicant has submitted an exhibit, which we passed out to you and which appears now on the overhead. This exhibit, which basically illustrates a resolution to that particular condition. We feel confident that what is shown here on this exhibit could indeed resolve this condition, and we prepare to go forward with that. So at this point, we'll take your questions and comments on this development plan. Questions? Doesn't appear to you at this time. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Scott Southall. I'm with CDP and represent the applicant. And at this point in time, we are in concurrence with staff in terms of the recommendations and the conditions and request approval. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? Yes, sir. I appreciate you doing the 23rd one and bringing this for the staff. Was there any other things we could have cleaned up before this hearing? Remember we talked about we had 23 conditions where we were going to clean these things up. I know you worked on this one, and I appreciate you doing that. But we're not really in the habit of seeing plans that have 23-plus conditions. And you promised us at the Sutter Division Committee that you would clean these up. Yes, sir. Except for this one, I don't see any cleanup going on here. Yes, sir. We did try to address some of the other issues that were on the conditions and were able to get through most of them. Although there was a few that we had discussions with staff back and forth in terms of how they wanted to clarify them. and we're not able to get the plan in in time, but we did submit a document about an hour later that cleaned up most of those items. But we don't have revised conditions on this, is my question. Do we have revised conditions? We don't. We do not. Mr. Salley? I was just going to say the submittal came past your filing deadline for those, and that's the reason you don't have a revised staff recommendation. They did make the attempt, and we have no doubt that a lot of them were cleaned up, but it missed the deadline by about an hour, so it was rejected by the staff. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Chairman, you said that most of them, Which ones have not been cleaned up? You don't have one? Does he? The only one that was in question was item 21. And that was due to us not being able to locate the easement. and we found out this morning that that easement was never recorded and therefore that was one of the items that was unresolved. But again, the easement was never recorded. We got that confirmation from staff this morning that the easement was never recorded and therefore we went down kind of a rabbit hole looking for it. so you're saying there's only one that's left unresolved and that's number 21 yes sir everything else has been added on to the plans okay i'm not doubting you i'm just wondering what we do does staff have any opinion on that as to whether that's the case mr rewer When we turned back basically the revised plan, we did not give it a review. Ordinarily, the plans that were submitted between your subdivision committee and the filing deadline on Tuesday, the staff has reviewed, and that's why you have revised conditions for them. When we turned back basically the submittal, we didn't have anything different than what the subdivision committee saw. that there was no new plan with our rejection of their submittal missing the deadline to have any revised conditions for? Mr. Brewer, I think part of the answer to this is is we asked them to clean this up and get it back in time so we'd get revised conditions. This didn't happen. We've been pushing, pushing, pushing to get this kind of thing done, and I just think it's hard for us to approve something that we really don't have the answer to what needs to happen here just because on the statement of the applicant and not the corroboration from the staff. So, you know, I don't think we have much choice here other than just to postpone it until they get it cleaned up because staff's not bringing a recommendation of approval, but they really haven't seen it. It came in late, and we have rules, and we either follow them or we don't. Let me do this real quick. We can just continue this discussion. Before we get to that point, let me just ask anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Okay. If not, we can continue discussion on this then. Did you have something else, Mr. Wilson? Well, I'm a little confused as to what it amounts to. The staff is recommending approval, but you didn't have, I mean, the only item that is not cleaned up is the 21. Is that being on? Well, here's the situation, Mr. Wilson. We in committee, the staff was recommending approval with these 23 conditions. One item was discussed, which is shown here. after discussing it. The applicant felt like he could take care of 23, and I made the motion for the recommendation of approval with the understanding that the remaining items would be cleaned up as well. At this point, unfortunately, we haven't seen that. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. If I could offer the commission an alternative. One I don't think the applicant will object to. If this item were continued for two weeks, that would permit the staff to accept their previous submittal, give it a review, and report to you in two weeks as to any of these conditions that have been met on the revised submittal. That would be plenty of time for the staff to review that. You could then consider possibly a revised list of conditions for this plan. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Yeah, so I wouldn't be part of the discussion, but I fully support Frank's comments about this is just way too many. So I think if you're willing to, I don't know, even if you're not willing, that's going to be my position that we postpone it for Bill's suggestion. And with part of where Mr. Saleh was going, since we have heard this, this would be a continuation. We often go with, say postponement meaning continuation, but this would be a continuation. for whatever time is deemed appropriate. You understand? That's fine. Okay. That's fine. All right. Thank you, sir. With that said, I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. I move for continuance of this. Let me get the right number. 2016-28 for two weeks. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for continuation of two weeks plan 2016-28. Humana Incorporated. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your understanding. Thank you. Next on the agenda is at the bottom of page 7. Green Hills Unit 2C, DP2016-30. You do have a revision. It's on a green sheet of paper with 14 revised conditions. Thank you. This is Item H on page 7, DP 2016-30, Greendale Hills, Unit 2C. And we have passed out a lovely green sheet for Greendale. I know you all picked up on that. This is a proposed multifamily development located out at the intersection of Citation Boulevard and Magnolia Springs. There is an assisted living facility under construction, probably very close to completion in this location. And you may recall that we killed a street that was coming into there. and we have a street network here, of course, to serve the rest of the development, the exception being Mabel Lane. Mabel Lane does currently terminate in this location. They are proposing 144 units in the buildings that you see before you with the associated parking. There's a clubhouse and a patio. The area over in here that you see outlined in blue, they are proposing a stormwater management. that is one of the items on your agenda on your handout is because they are proposing this for stormwater management and we've outlined for you a sinkhole area. Now, the applicant reported to your subdivision committee there has been some investigation of this area and I'm sure they're going to elaborate on that today for you. And as you can see, the state of Kentucky built citation over an area of the sinkhole. and we all hope and will assume that they did the appropriate investigation in building Citation Boulevard. They are proposing just a single access into Magnolia Springs at this location and there was considerable discussion about secondary access, obviously for emergency vehicles is always a serious concern. Again, the applicant reported there were topographic and slope concerns in this area to existing Mabel Lane. so they are planning an emergency access in this location at such time that Mabel Lane is extended. Now, they don't control that. One of the conditions is that they denote a proposed timetable for that. There are preliminary plans for this area. This area is controlled by Ball Homes. It is proposed for single-family homes. With that, and with your revised handout, staff is recommending approval of this development plan. And again, as I stated, they need to address the planned extension of Maple Lane right-of-way. We added, resolved the use of that sinkhole area for stormwater management. and then complete the pedestrian system internally to the development out to the right-of-way. We like good extensions, as you know, for pedestrians to the right-of-way and to move around in a multifamily development safely. There's a small item, kind of an interesting item, about identifying existing zoning. Our maps indicate that there could be some existing I-1 zoning barely coming up into this property that's related to I-1 property across citation. The applicant has given us some evidence with the right-of-way in the purchase of citation that that I-1 may actually be off the new property line on this property, and that is something we're still working to resolve with the applicant. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Captain, anything to add? Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Cayley at the EA Partners. I will not elaborate on sinkhole because I am not an engineer. The geotechnical engineering firm will investigate this. They'll prepare a report. We will work with the Division of Engineering on that report and proceed accordingly. there are multiple ways to provide stormwater management. Condition 13, as is written, where it is to the approval of division engineering, is fine with us. We're very agreeable. The number 12 timing of extension of Mabel Lane, we were thinking that we would agree to make that emergency connection within six months of construction and dedication. Since it's by a developer who's not involved with this and also using a firm that's not me, I have no idea of when that timing might be, how quickly development will happen, but I think showing it on the plan and saying that this apartment complex will make that emergency connection when it is built and dedicated or within six months of that time is fair. Number 11, we will talk with GIS. From everything we've uncovered, we think it's just an error in the drawing of the line. And number 14, when we submitted the revised plan to planning, I also submitted it to the sidewalk planner for his review. He has provided an email that was acceptable. That is also part of sign-off of number 7, so I think that is fine. all of these things should get resolved as staff has presented them with this addition to number 12 with that timing note for six months of connection. Thank you. Question, Mr. Pinn? No. No? Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Cagley? No. Thank you, sir. else in the audience wish to speak on this? Questions from the commission for anyone? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Yes, sir. Question? If it's permissible, I will make a motion that we approve of DP 2016-30 Greendale Hills Unit 2C with the 14 conditions outlined by staff. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of DP 2016-30 Greendale Hills with the revised 14 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. We're at a point here. It is 3 o'clock. Wishes from the Commission. Need a brief resale? Do you want to go on? Go on? We'll move on until I hear otherwise. page 9 DP 2016-34 Adams, Proppy, and Cadentown lots 3 and 4 we do have a waiver that is before you with this request Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you. This item is on page 9, item L, DP 2016-34, Adams Property in Cadentown, Lots 3 and 4, also known as Brighton 3050. This property has an address of 3050, Helmsdale Place. Staff does not have a revised recommendation for you, but this is the same development plan that those of you on the subdivision committee saw one week ago. This is for property on Liberty Road, very near Manowar Boulevard, which is mostly just off the drawing. There are signalized intersections at Liberty and Manowar and also Helmsdale Place and Manowar. Helmsdale Place being the primary access for a very large apartment complex behind the Brighton Place shops, which most everybody drives by routinely along Manowar Boulevard. This development has very little frontage along Liberty Road, although commission members may recall a couple of zone changes we've had in this area over the past 18 months, one to a B1 zone and to an R4 zone at this location. Subject property for this development plan amendment is at the end of Campbell Lane, an old rural road that has since been obviously incorporated into the urban area that serves a number of single-family residential lots on both sides of the roadway. This roadway was affected by the construction and widening of Liberty Road a few years ago. Much of the issue with this plan is regarding the end of Campbell Lane, as that's really the purpose of this amended development plan, is to add two new apartment buildings into the existing Brighton 3050 residential development. There are a number of apartment units on this plan. I should have looked at that. Total bedrooms, 660. Total units, 356. These two buildings are both 30-unit buildings, two and three bedrooms in this one, one and three bedrooms in this one. This property here, along with this property, were also more recently in front of the Planning Commission in terms of rezonings to R4. The primary zoning of the development is R3, so these are zoned for more intensive development from a floor area ratio standpoint and so forth. In looking at your agenda and your recommendation from your subdivision committee, the first 10 conditions are what can be classified as typical sign-off conditions from the different local government agencies. Number 11, addition of height of building and feet. That's a routine development plan condition that can be easily complied with. In addition, number 12 is the addition of an additional note that staff feels is necessary to the plan, just stating that Campbell Lane will not be used for construction access due to its poor condition. There are three discussion items that have come from your subcommittee meeting. That's all right. I was wondering which commission member was asking me a question. number 13 discuss stormwater needs for buildings eight and nine there is no additional stormwater proposed on the development plan and the reason this was a discussion item is there is a wetland associated with the stormwater for the project so this can basically be answered as to whether or this water will drain into that system or need some other type of treatment. So that is a condition that can be resolved. 13, change to resolve. Number 14, discuss termination of Campbell Lane per note number 16 and discussion of turnaround. Mr. Martin will present the waiver report on that to you in just a moment, so I think that will clarify that particular item. Number 15, discuss perimeter setback compliance and note number 17. Note 17 says that that will be determined at the time of a final development plan. Well, this is a final development plan, so now is the time for that determination. The building that's closest to the end of Campbell Lane has a couple of, it's unfair to call them appendages, projections that go into the required setback. Overall, it looks as if that will average, but we think we can change that to delete perimeter setback note number 17. Again, that note says it will be resolved at the final development plan. The staff will want that resolved before we certify this plan. So that change will make that issue have to be addressed now before the plan is certified just to ensure that it does meet the proper setback requirement. Before Mr. Martin presents the staff report on the waiver, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the regular commission members. Thank you, sir. Any members have any questions? None from Siri either. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the waiver request that you have before you does relate to the termination of Campbell Lane as it comes into this property. As Bill explained, it's an old rural residential lane with a few houses and residents still there on Campbell Lane. It's never done anything but stub into the adjoining property, and it is, of course, substandard. It currently has an emergency gate across it that prevents access into the multifamily development except for emergency vehicles. This area, where you see a Type 9 building, has emergency access into the vet clinic in Sheaville that's coming in this location. And this is the building that they're going to construct across the existing right-of-way of Campbell Lane. They have filed with the Urban County Government to have that right-of-way released. It is under review. It has been recommended by staff review to be released since it is governed by a development plan, and they are showing the building in this location. To address the need for emergency vehicle access and a turnaround, which a cul-de-sac would normally provide that, and since that's the request is to not have to build a cul-de-sac or some public turnaround, They are providing a turnaround in this location for emergency vehicles if they need to access the property or others that may need to access the property. That will have to be designed and built and dimensioned to the satisfaction of our traffic engineering folks. With that, staff is recommending approval of the waiver. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. applicant? Anything to add? Not a whole lot, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing the applicant RML. Rory Kaley is here with me and we are requesting the waiver of the cul-de-sac on Campbell Lane. We're decreasing the number of properties that use Campbell Lane. We're decreasing the amount of traffic on Campbell Lane. We're decreasing its length and it's never had a turnaround and we're providing a turnaround for it on this one. So we think it's justified. We will have the emergency access through the Shea Bell property next door to us. So we're requesting the waiver of 14. We're agreeable with the staff. Note on 15, delete note number 17. That may mean we will resolve that. We're having to keep that one lot separate from the rest due to the mortgages on the property. We have a trustee on the mortgage on the big one and they never change anything. So we're having to keep it separate may mean we have to get a variance for our own property lines, but we'll work that out with the staff, and that would be encompassed in the staff's suggestion about deleting note 17. And Rory can answer any questions you have on stormwater here on this. We have turned in stormwater management report to division engineering. All the water on the plan colored up here is all going into those blue areas. That's the existing basin areas. We've got the capacity for all of this development and work its way through engineering. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Murph here or Mr. Kaling? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Yes, sir. My name is Jeff Morgan. I've done quite a bit development on the other side of Caden Lane and currently reside on Caden Lane. We've done quite a bit of stormwater work for Link Belt, sheds their water onto us. And I just wanted to say that I'm in support of the plan. I think it's well thought out and they're doing a good job. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Questions from the commission? Mr. Finn? I am. We've got three items we need to take care of. I'd like a waiver. I set a motion on the waiver as well. But right now, the development plan 2016-34. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2016-34, changing number 15 to delete before certification. Mr. Penn, number 13, number 14, you want to change those to resolve, or are you going to leave and discuss? I think everyone, Mr. Salley, offered resolve. And number 14, I would say probably just needs to be reworded, provided we do approve the waiver request. Okay. So to resolve the termination of Campbell Lane per Board of Adjustment? No, waiver. Per waiver, WAV, yeah. Okay. All right. Claire's mud. Do you want the waiver created separate? Yes. Okay. So, okay. Mr. Brewer, second of motion. So any clarification needed? 13 is resolved. 14 is provided we approve the waiver. And 15 is to delete the perimeter setback. No questions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And then for the waiver associated with this. Mr. Chairman, I move the waiver of DP 2016-34 is presented to us by staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Brewer for approval of the associated waiver. For the findings provided by staff, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Next, moving on to the bottom of page 10, it's DP 2016-38 Field in Maine. You do have a revision that is before you on a light gray sheet of paper. Good afternoon. We have the gray sheet, DP 2016-38, Field and Main. This is East Main Street. We have Eastern Avenue, Thoroughbred Park. This is where they're going to demolish a couple buildings, and they want to bring back and put in a building with a bank on the first floor with retail above. the parking will be accessed off of Eastern Avenue it looks two layered down here in this little insert here it shows residential and then the second story of the parking they are proposing a bank and they wanted a drive through here and there were some questions and concerns about the turning radius so if everybody wants to take a look at their new copy they kind of moved the drive through further back so more lines up here so that that turning radius can get back out of the parking lot. The first seven conditions are your typical sign-offs, and the last few conditions are just some cleanup conditions. This is an infill redevelopment project. We've also spoke with Brandy Preacher, about the town-town streetscape, and she feels they can meet that with no problem. So we have deleted that as one of the conditions, but just to let you know that she has reviewed this. They are going in front of the Board of Adjustments, so there will be information for approvals for the variances and the conditional use, and we have asked for that to be put on this plan. With that, any other comments, questions? Questions, Ms. Gall? No? Sounds good. Thank you, ma'am. Captain? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dick Murphy here on behalf of Jeff Morgan, who's the developer of this building. It's a very exciting new project for New Bank where the A1A has been or was while it was still in existence. We're in agreement with the staff's recommendation. there's been a lot of work on this between the subdivision committee and today they're providing a a dumpster this monday i know you had that question at subdivision committee meeting a privately serviced dumpster and they've revised the drive-through lanes just wanted to tell you all the people we have here the the main work on this is being done by CMW architects Brian Hill, Todd Ott, and Adam Bender Saunders are here from CMW. We also have Nathan Wright, who's the Lexington Market President of Field and Main Bank. We have Cameron Stratton from Siemens Company, which is doing some of the mechanicals in the building. And, of course, Jeff Morgan is here. We've also gotten support indications from our two neighbors, Zef Maloney, who has that Cup of Commonwealth, and Phil Hollebeck, who did Main and Rose. So there's a lot of community support behind this, and we're very grateful for that. On item, which is now 11, we thought maybe we complied because we were between the two setbacks, but we'll have to get a variance for it. We're going to the Board of Adjustment anyway for our drive-through window, so that's how we'll be resolving that. on number 12. I understand that's just resolving that with the staff, the building face issues on that. So we thank you, thank the staff for the review of this, and we thank you for your consideration. Mr. Murphy, let me ask you this. In committee the other day, they did put up a rendering or a picture of the streetscape or proposed streetscape. Is that available? Yeah, it's been in the newspaper a couple times. we can yeah we'll see if an iPhone can be projected through the system I'm very yeah it's something to see I like the concept of this I will say that and really coming out of committee for me that you know one we got to take care of traffic but to the dumpster issue was the main concern and I did like the picture that was put up and would like the Commission be able to see it if you got it available. Otherwise, as they're trying, as they're trying, let me... Here comes the newspaper. We got the newspaper, all right. I've got to switch to the same side. Yeah. We have pictures from the party also. Getting close. There you go. You can see that will fit real nicely on that street. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Anyone else in the audience want to speak on this plan? If not, thank you. Thank you for the revisions and working on this. If there's no questions, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Chair? Yes. Move for approval of DP 2016-38 with the 12 revised conditions. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2016-38 with the revised 12 conditions. Please vote. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks, for coming. I believe we can skip over to page 12, and we have a minor subdivision plan. In the middle of the page, Plan 2016-25C Goodwin Acres. And I think you do have some additional information before you that's stapled together. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, this item is on page 12. It is planned 2016-25C Goodwin Acres, lots 31, 32, 33, and 34. This property has an address of 3798 Royster Road. And as you've mentioned, we have handed out a set of staff exhibits for you that will kind of walk through our presentation. Before I do, I would like to orient the commission to the location of the property using the first staff exhibit that we'll put on the overhead for you. It is a rather dated zoning map from our prior atlas. As you know, now we have GIS-based zoning. This was a copy of the prior atlas for this area. Subject property is zoned AR, that's Agricultural Rural, and it's very near the Columbus Town Rural Settlement, which is just to the north and west of this location on Royster Road. That is in the upper left of this particular graphic. If we could zoom out just a little bit, please. I'd like to orient you as well that it's very near the intersection of Winchester Road and Royster Road in the lower right corner of the exhibit. In fact, the corner lot there, if you're familiar with the area, is where there's a rural fire station that's been there now for a number of years. So this is in the rural service area. It is approximately a half a mile or so from the nearest edge of the urban service area, and the predominant zoning in the area is agricultural rural. The plat that the staff is referring to, the commission, is a proposed consolidation plat, and it's difficult because this plat has north in this direction, so it really is a reverse of north, which is to the top here on the map. Royster Road is here. It turns and comes into Winchester Road in this location. The vicinity map is correct, but it is showing four lots being consolidated into two lots. Each lot is approximately 2.0 acres in size. So it is proposing to end up with two four-acre lots. Flipping through the exhibits, we have an aerial photo of the location on Royster Road of these properties. The center property is identified as 3798 Royster Road, and it does have a house where the red dot is, just to the left of the term Royster Road, and several agricultural buildings on the property. It is shown as one parcel, and there are other four-acre parcels, two-acre parcels, four-acre parcels in the general vicinity to the north and west. That's 3784 and 3776. You've already seen the proposed consolidation that was just shown. However, there is an oversized document that is very vital to the staffs and to your consideration of this request. It is a copy of the 1947 plat of Goodwin Acres Subdivision. We have highlighted the four lots that are shown on the consolidation plat. You can see from the date this is May 1947. This was recorded at a time where there was no zoning in the Fayette County area. The only zoning regulations for the community were in Lexington, and there may have been some extraterritorial zoning at that time. I'm not sure, but there were no zoning regulations in this area when this plat was recorded. Each of these lots on the plat are a little over 100 feet in frontage, and as you can see, they're each approximately two acres in size. This is the basis for the applicant's proposed consolidation plat. The staff always looks to the subdivision regulations or to the zoning regulations whenever we have an application and when we make our recommendation to you. And we do the same thing when we're faced with a minor subdivision plan in for review. The next couple of exhibits are excerpts from our regulations to show you what the types of things that the planning staff has looked at. A consolidation minor subdivision plan is defined in Article II of your subdivision regulations to change the lot boundaries of two or more properties or to combine at least two properties into a lesser number of lots than originally existed. The basic rule for consolidation plats contained in the final sentence, no consolidation may result in there being more separate transferable parcels after consolidation than prior to consolidation. This one sentence is the key to your review of this plat this afternoon and the key to why the planning staff has referred this to you for your review. Under Article III, the procedure that we follow for a minor subdivision is we review it for compliance with all your applicable regulations, and then if any question arises, we have the ability to refer that. As you know, four or five times a year we do refer this type of plan to the Commission, as we're doing today. We also look in the next exhibit at the zoning regulations, in this case the AR zone. We find that the permitted uses for the parcel in question is for a single-family detached dwelling. There is one home on this eight-acre tract of land. There are, though, a number of accessory uses being conducted on this property associated with agriculture, including agricultural structures, including also a private garage on the property. So generally on this eight acres, we have one dwelling and a number of agricultural structures as well. The next staff exhibit comes from the PVA records showing the address of the property, showing its legal description as being lots 31 through 34 of this subdivision, showing it being 8.16 acres in size, having agricultural rural zoning. One of the most important factors is the accessory information at the bottom, showing that they consider accessory being the garages, the horse barns, and the tobacco barn on the property with the one house that is on the property. This is significant from the staff's review. The staff has conversed with the PVA about the subdivision plat, and they, like the staff, recognize that that plat was recorded in 1947 and is the basis for this application. Why this plat has even been filed with us is that 1947 plat. So everyone is aware of that subdivision plat. However, the final page of the staff exhibit really summarizes our review and why we have recommended that this be forwarded to you. The staff is recommending disapproval of the plat, really for two reasons. We find that the plat is not in accordance with the article of your subdivision regulations. We find that this is a single property. It is not two or more properties, as is required in your subdivision regulations. The deed for the property, the current use of the property, and the tax records all indicate a singular property at this address. Secondly, the staff understands that there may already have been a transfer of the property based on the 1947 plat. And if that's the case, we find that really this consolidation plat that's before you is not necessary. It's not needed. So that would be a second reason that we would recommend disapproval. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have about our review or our recommendation before you hear from the applicant. We have talked with the surveyor who prepared the plat, and there have been dialogues also between Mr. Martin and the attorney involved in this. I don't believe either one is here today, but we would be glad to answer any questions from the commission at this time about why we've referred this plat to you. Questions for Mr. Salley? Yes, sir. Mr. Salley, what's this? I mean, here's these four. Yes, sir. What's this? You're seeing that entire strip. That would equate on the zoning map highlighted 27 through 38. On the zoning map, you're seeing lots 27 through 38 highlighted. On the plat that we've handed to you are just the four that are involved in this proposal. You can see that some of the transfers that have happened have been combinations of some of these losses. All right, is it this large? Is that the four lots? This largest one, sir, doesn't even, it encompasses more than the four lots. It encompasses about eight of the lots. For instance, the largest tract on the zoning map highlight would probably equate to lots 31 through 38, so eight of the original 1947 lots. So it looks like there's several addresses on there. How do you say that's not, doesn't say there's four lots? Yes, and I believe that according to the PVA records, 3784 Royster are lots 35 and 36, and 3776 Royster are lots 37 and 38. Does not be close? No, the ones before you are 31 through 34. But that's why this lot on the zoning map appears so much larger, because it appears that these two have been transferred off. The deed to the property that's before you shows about 17 acres, so it does look like there have been conveyances off of that, as best we can tell. Again, the key, I think, from the staff perspective is, is this one property or is it four? And that's the key to whether the plat can be approved or not. Mr. Soe, in looking at the PVA report, it does state that it is lot 31 through 34. Yes. So in my mind, there's four lots there. Understood. That's the issue. Yeah. But you were saying it looked like there were two lots and two lots, but based on PVA, it's four lots. Yes. PVA is showing lots 31 through 34. And your subregs, the only mention of lots is the post-consolidation. Pre-consolidation is about the number of properties there. I think that difference is really the issue. Can you explain to me, you made the statement, and it concerns me a little bit, that number two, it says that there was a recent real estate closing that transpired. and the property is encumbered by the proposed plat. So basically my question is, was the property sold and represented that the proposed plat is what they were buying rather than them buying what PBA is showing us? I do not know. Okay. We just had a report, I think, earlier this week that, let me back up. When we initially raised this issue with the surveyor, we were told, well, we may just go ahead and proceed under the existing plat. We heard nothing more for a number of weeks, but my understanding is earlier in the week, we've been told that a transfer has occurred, and we can only presume it's off the 1947 plat. This plat's not recorded, so I wouldn't think that would have been used. Interesting. Thank you. Other questions for Mr. Selle? Yeah, I do. Okay. I thought I understood this, but the more I listen to it, the more confused I get. The two-acre plats that they have, were they ever recorded? Yes, sir. The 1947 plat is a record in the clerk's office. Okay, now, if I wanted to buy one of those two-acre tracks today, could I buy it? I am not sure. I'm not saying could I buy it from the paying for standpoint. I mean, can you sell the two-acre piece of property? I'm not sure. I wish I'd gone to law school so I could answer that question. Well, I'm glad I didn't go. That's why I'm asking somebody that did. But, I mean, Tracy, could they convey the two-acre piece of property as it's planted right now? That's the question that we're in front of you on. Are you talking about the two-acre pieces? That they're wanting to consolidate. They're what? It's because I'll date four of them into two four-acre tracts. I think if you rely entirely on the 1947 plat, which is the only plat of record, yes, probably we could. So they were grandfathered in before the 40-acre rule went in? Oh, yeah. Okay. Before there was even 10 acres. But are those two acres sellable? Could they sell me the two acres today? I think that they probably can. But the reason that we decided to bring it to you all was because the mapping and the PVA looks a little not the same as the 47 plat. Right. But I have talked to the title attorney on this. I talked with him today. And he assured me that this is the only plat of record. There hasn't been a subsequent plat. So if you look at this plat and you look at lots, what are labeled on here as 35, 36, 37, and 38, that we think are those two addressed pieces or parcels at the end with addresses, they were probably just sold off by deed. because obviously they're there and they have addresses, but there is not another plat in between this and whatever happened with that. So it gave us some pause initially. I understand. But I think probably you could sell off two lots, or you could sell off a lot that's two acres based on this 47 plat. So based on the 47 plan, we got four lots that could be consolidated. It could certainly be interpreted that way. I don't think it would be. We did not because your regs don't talk about lots, they talk about properties. I have a question. The two properties that we just, the two addresses that exist beside this, 3784 and 3776? Yes. It looks like to me each of those properties is two lots. I believe so. Let me grab the PVA records and I can confirm that. They very well could be, Mr. Berkley, two lots. We don't know, because we only have what is pertaining to this particular consolidation plot in front of you all. And so whether or not they were conveyed, I mean, I'm assuming, but I don't know, because I haven't seen the deeds, and we don't do title work for things when they come up like this. But I'm assuming they would have probably reflected these lots together to create whatever was purchased in that purchase plot, but I don't know. So is the issue that they cannot build a house on the property line or across the property line? Well, I don't know, and I'm going to certainly defer to whatever Mr. Sally or Mr. Martin or Mr. Duncan want to say, because they deal with the zoning part of this and have for a number of years longer than I have. But the issue, it seemed to us, was if these aren't four separate lots and they're one lot, then if you do a consolidation plot to create two lots, are you going to get contrary to the subdivision regulation that says you can't create a consolidation plot and make less lots than you started out with? But I will say the reg does talk about property and lots, and you could apply, you know, I think the watts are probably what's controlling because of this plat, but, you know, there is some room in there, so that's why we wanted you all to hear it, and it's in the AR zone. But it is not contrary to the minimum watt size in the AR zone because clearly this plat was in place way before any of that, so that's really not an issue. Let me let Mr. Saleh off of what he was looking at, and then we'll get to others that may want to speak. 37-76 is showing as lot 37 and 38 of the subdivision, and 37-84 is showing as 35 and 36, both just over 4.1 acres each. So it does appear these have been transferred off the 47 flat. That's kind of the history of this area is almost everything out in this area has been a combination of lots to create singular properties. And that really is the issue that you have right here. Just exactly the same. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Captain, would you like to speak? Mr. Chairman and Commission members, I'm going to try to give you all a complete background on this property. Your name first. Wayne Goins. I'm the listing agent on the property. Thank you, Wayne. Mr. Green bought this property in 1947. he bought eight two-acre lots, very clear on the original plat, the 1947 plat, as Mr. Sally referred to. He, approximately 15 or 20 years ago, deeded two pairs of lots to his daughters who are in the audience here, and that left the other two pairs of lots that we're trying to consolidate. You know, we feel like we're doing something that would improve the neighborhood rather than have four small homes to have two, you know, two four-acre tracks and maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. The attorney that closed the previous sale for the lots 31 and 32 feels strongly that the 1947 Platt is what is the gold standard here. He has checked with the title company, Old Republic. I think he's had conversation with Ms. Jones and feels like what we're proposing here is correct. Is there anything I can answer that maybe is a little bit of a gray area for you? Let me ask, with what you just said, it sounds like lots 31 and 32 have just recently been sold? They have been transferred, and that leaves lots 33 and 34. That's what's precipitating all this? Yes, lots 33 and 34. the buyer there preferred to have a new plat, which we were trying to do the right thing and simply replat these four two-acre lots into two four-acre lots. And, you know, here sits two daughters that have already used the same situations and have homes on them. Right. And there's a home, there's an existing home on that 31 and 32 that's their plan on rehabbing and remodeling. Questions for Mr. Goins in commission? Yes, sir. So this 31 and 32 sale, did you just deed it? I mean, the meets and bounds, is that what you used to deed the two? I'm not sure, Mr. Goins. That's over my head, but Mr. Maness was the closing attorney, Joe Ed Maness, and I'm not sure in that regard. So now all you want to do is take these four and make two lots of them? Yes. We just simply want to make 31 and 32 a four-acre lot and 33 and 34 a four-acre lot. It really maintains the character of the neighborhood. I could understand all this if we were going back from eight acres trying to get four two-acre lots. I could understand the opposition here. On the PVA matter, Mr. Maness spoke with them and was told, look, we just put those on one tax bill and did one drawing for our convenience. It had nothing to do with replatting this property. Thank you, Mr. Collins. I would tend to agree that two four-acre lots would be better than four two-acre lots. And with what Mr. Saleh is saying, it sounds like it's definitions between property and lots. So that's what we've got to try and decide here, I guess. So, commission members? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Any other discussion? Well, I see four lots. I see no reason not to say there's not four lots there. Nobody's produced a plant other than this, a later plant, so I'm willing to make a motion if everybody's. Okay, any other discussion first? Discussion? Discussion? Mr. Finn? Yeah. I want somebody to help me understand the subdivision articles that would prohibit us from doing this. I've read what's in the staff here, but I need somebody to interpret this, because I first thought we were doing a consolidation plat to create another nonconforming use. But now that this is ahead of the time, I don't think conforming or nonconforming is part of this issue. Am I right on this? No, I agree with you that it's not part of the issue because single-family homes are permitted in the zone. Right. So even if they build another single-family home on the transferred property, that's permitted by the zone. Sure it is. It's not a nonconforming use issue. Right. And that's their intent is to build one home on each new four-acre plant. And that's going to be part of the deed, actually, and was part of the first deed. I guess what I'm asking in my own mind here, and I guess I ask this to the staff, help me understand your reason for disapproval based on the fact it's in the AR zone. How does our subdivision regulations differ from what they're asking to do? And I just cannot get that in my mind. I think the only reason that I brought in the AR zone items was just to demonstrate there's one principal use and several accessory uses on the eight acres. And that helped us lead to the conclusion that this is one property. So you're seeing this as an eight-acre piece of property? Exactly. Okay, I understand where you're coming from. You've got a house, you've got the barns, you've got the whole deal. You have one home and several accessory structures on the entirety of the 880. It gets back to property and lot, just like Mr. Chairman spoke a moment ago. With all due respect, where is the plat that supports that? I mean, we're going back to the plat that's the only plat of record. Mr. Goins, we've closed any further testimony, so let's leave it at that and leave it for discussion among commission members, unless they've got a specific question where we have to reopen this. I'm sufficiently confused, that's for sure. It sounds to me like the result of this, either we follow the staff's recommendation for disapproval or reverse and take approval, it sounds to me like you can still do the same thing regardless of the outcome. Am I misinterpreting that? It is confusing when you start talking about it. Let me start out this way and see if this helps, because this is how I had to process it in my head at first. I think we are talking about, and the word difference of lots in property in the subdivision regulation creates a lot of the question here for us that we had to deal with. And obviously we have some differing opinions amongst ourselves as to how you could interpret that. which doesn't happen very often, by the way. It is an eight-acre piece of property, but I believe it's made up based on this plat of four two-acre lots, and that's all that is of record. So very possibly they could just deed it off, and you'd still have, as apparently has already been done, since there's no subsequent plat to the 1947 plat. But then you would still have a four-acre tract made up of two two-acre tracts and another four-acre tract made up of two two-acre tracts. But they could probably do that. What they're trying to do is go ahead and get another plat of record because one of the owners wouldn't like to do that, is what I heard. and so when they brought that plat in to us, that's when the question arose. So the question for you all is, do you believe that there are separate lots there that can be combined? Because if you think it's all one piece of property, you probably can't create a consolidation plat under your sub-regulations. But if you think there are still, based on the 47 plat, two-acre tracts or two-acre lots, then you could consolidate them, and you will get a subsequent plat filed of record that will make larger lots. So that's kind of where you are. Okay, thank you. That helps. I hate to backtrack here, but we've got one gentleman. He's raised his hand a couple of times. There's one statement, and we'll open it and then close this back. Thank you. I appreciate it. My name is Eric Ridd. I'm the prospective buyer. That's why I wanted to speak for just a second. My wife and I are trying to purchase lots 33 and 34. I just wanted to say that I agree with what they're saying, and that in looking, I spent significant time two weeks ago at the PVA office digging through records and deeds, looking at it, and there is nothing else that shows anything else that has trumped the original 47 plat, showing the two-acre lots. The reason we are trying to pursue this consolidation plan is because building inspection told us that we can't put a building, a house, a home across the property line since there's no structure there. So we're trying to consolidate it into one four-acre lot so we can put a home on the property, a single residence, and live there. That's our intention. Just wanted to make that known. Any questions? Oh, it's just clear as mud. Exactly. I've learned that. No, thank you. Yes, thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cravens? If you were to, I believe if you were to go try and get a building permit to build a house and you wouldn't put it right in the middle of those two lots, the building inspector is going to send you up to planning and zoning and tell you you can't build a house across those two lots. You agree with that, Mr. President? Okay. That's right. Okay, this is closed. So discussion and or motions? Any discussion? I'll move. We're going to go with the motion. Mr. Cravens. I'm going to move approval of Plan 2016-25C, consolidating these lots. The motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the request for this consolidation plan 2016-25C, Goodwin-Acres. one question either for legal or staff the motion simple enough and clarified good so the motion is for approval of this consolidation it was seconded by Ms. Richardson please vote when it comes up on the screen the motion passes thank you folks didn't mean to make it that hard we just want to try and do things right and in the right way We do have a performance bond letter of credit that we need to approve or disapprove, or whichever direction you want to go with that. Move approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit. Thank you. We've got a motion and a second for the approval of the release and call of bonds for April 14, 2016. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Moving to text amendment items under commission items. First one is SRA 2016-1, amendment to Article 4-4D-1. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you. This item is on page 12, item 6A of your agenda. We have two proposed text amendments to your subdivision regulations. The first is proposed to Article 4-4, subsection 1, regarding the approval of preliminary plans. This has been initiated by the Planning Commission at the request of the staff, and it would increase the time that a preliminary subdivision plan would basically have life from the current three years to the proposed five years from the date of the Commission's action on the plan. This is designed to dispel two current uncertainties and confusing items in subdivision regulations. You have a number of plans that are approved not only as a preliminary subdivision plan, but also as a final development plan. Under the zoning ordinance, a final development plan has life for issuing building permits for up to five years. Some of these plans will expire in one fashion ahead of the rest of the plan expiring two years later. This proposal would extend the life of these plans to five years from the date of Planning Commission approval to make them match exactly what's in your zoning ordinance for the life of a development plan. The other uncertainty that this text amendment would take care of is when that three-year clock begins to run. For years, that has been interpreted by the staff as the date of certification of the plan, or the date that the staff certifies that it meets all of the conditions of the Planning Commission's approval at your prior meeting. However, in looking at that more closely recently with the Law Department, that is ambiguous, and that's just a folk way, if you will. So this text amendment will take away that ambiguity and make it certain that it's five years from the date of commission approval. Those are the two major changes to this proposal. Your subdivision committee and the staff have recommended approval of making this text change to Article 4-4 for the two reasons that appear in the staff report and on the agenda. One, it will remove the conflict between the zoning ordinance and the land subdivision regulations. before in combined plans that are preliminary subvision plans and final development plans. Secondly, it will also take care of the uncertainty regarding the timeline that one of these types of plans is alive and allows the filing of other items beyond it. I'd be glad to answer any questions about this first one if there are any from the Commission. Questions? If not, you've lost your audience, Mr. Selle. If there's no questions, we close it and ask for a motion. Yes. My honor, I move for approval of SRA 2016-1 Amendment to Articles 4-4-D1. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of SRA 2016-1 Amendment to Article 4-4-D1. Please vote. Motion passes. Now for number two. Next item on your agenda. Yes, sir. This is item 6B on page 13, SRA 2016-2. This is a proposed change to articles 2-3B and article 3-5B of your land subdivision regulations regarding the allowable conditions for non-building minor subdivision plans. The two changes that are proposed is to change the minimum lot size that are allowable for these types of minor plans. Currently, there is a 10-acre minimum for this type of plan, and what the staff has seen over the past 5 to 10 years is that these types of plats have rarely been proposed for as much as 10 acres. The normal type size of a takedown plat has reduced more in the range of probably 3 to 7 acres. over the past few years, just because large tracts already have been divided several times. The other proposed change is to account for the greater lot size requirement by some of our agricultural zones. For instance, 10 acres does not meet the minimum requirement in some of our agricultural zones, so it seems to be an unusual circumstance now that didn't exist 25 years ago to have a 10-acre tract that is still below the minimum requirement in the zone. So one of the major changes to this section is to reduce the 10-acre requirement in most circumstances to allow for a non-building lot to be created of at least an acre in size unless the zoning of the property has a larger minimum lot size requirement. And in that case, the larger of the two would be the minimum for a non-building plat rather than just a flat 10 acres across the board. We see that this will eliminate the possibility that someone may think they could have a lot smaller than the minimum agricultural size lot in the zoning ordinance and also still accommodate the recent trend that we've seen for non-building plats. The other proposed change is to allow a non-building plat not to be replaced only with a final record plat, but by either a final record plat or a final development plan. The reason and the need for this change is primarily due to infill development. It's very common now not to have another final record plat for a property in the infill area, but conversely it's very common to expect to see a final development plan for those properties. And so both of those plans have to be approved by the Planning Commission and, as you know, completed with any conditions that you apply to those approvals. So it seems reasonable from the staff perspective to allow either of those types of processes, either for a development plan or a plat, to be able to eliminate the non-building restriction on a lot. The primary purpose for making these two changes in unison at the same time is to attempt to eliminate some of the requests that you get for waivers of infrastructure construction. We think by making these changes, I wish I could tell you that I think we'll eliminate that. We have provided the mechanism that they can be greatly reduced, and I do think they will be reduced if we make these changes. And again, this is based on the staff's experience over the last few years, and I know in the last year or two you can recall there's very few meetings you have now for subdivision development plans that don't involve some type of waiver. So definitely you have seen an increase in those. Hopefully this type of change will reduce that in the future. The staff and your subdivision committee have recommended approval of this text amendment, again for two reasons. The proposed text amendment is a timely relaxation to the subdivision regulations regarding the process to take down undeveloped parcels of land. And secondly, these types of plats have been little used in recent years due to the lot size restrictions and the need for a follow-up final record plat. These two changes may make it easier, should make it easier, as in the staff report, for developers to acquire and dispose of smaller tracks in advance of their development. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our recommendation to you on this proposed change to your subdivision regulations. Questions? No. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Motion? Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Is this a move of approval of SRA 2016-2 amendment to the Articles? Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Plumlee. Any discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. We're about done. Let me mention this, and I don't want to take long. One commission item. It came up out of committee, our subdivision committee last week. There was discussion after that. You've seen it here on the agenda. We had one item that the applicant was not there and had had no discussion with the staff at all since the following, and that was one item that we recommended postponement on without even hearing last week, and it was subsequently postponed today with Mr. Martin representing the applicant today. Principally, what really brought this subject to forefront is the postponement that we had today on page 11 that pretty much takes up the whole page. when this thing came up kind of at the tail end of the agenda last week. Before we even got into it, the question was, the staff had recommended postponement with what you see on the page. This is property that we know and have seen recently with the large number of conditions, especially with the 12 discussion items in which there was no revisions. It was just simply felt that this thing was not ready to go forward, and there was a brief discussion at the committee, and subsequently this was recommended for postponement without it being seen in subdivision. The applicant was in approval of that, was okay with that, and subsequently asked for postponement here today. Quite frankly, I was surprised they just asked for two-week postponement. But the discussion that came afterwards was, you know, is this really appropriate? We had people at the committee meeting that was waiting in opposition to this. They recognized this was not ready to go forward and did not ask to be heard. However, it was felt, I feel it, it was felt by a couple of others that I spoke to, that is there a way for the commission to give leeway to the staff in a situation like this simply to keep it off the committee agenda until subsequent information, corrections, discussion, revisions are made to help move this thing forward because obviously this wasn't ready to go forward at this time. Like I said, I don't want prolonged discussion. I did bring it up to Bill Salee and Mr. Duncan today. And initially it was the fact that this would be an excellent thing to talk about in a work session. And it was then felt that since we don't have a work session coming up until the end of June and this was fresh on everybody's mind, at least bring it up and let everyone take note of it. If there's any brief discussion, we can have it now. We can definitely talk about it at a work session. Very briefly, I want you to understand, we had 27 different items to hear at the committee, and some of them, you know, we have a timeline they have to get in by, but if they have to get in 24 to 48 hours before and you've got something like you just saw right here and you've got 12 discussion items and the staff hasn't had a chance to work out with the applicant there's no reason for us to waste our time hearing it because we can't handle 12 discussion items and bring you all a recommendation of approval or whatever with 29 conditions. So I don't know how we fix this but I would like for the staff to think about what we could do as a commission to help cut this down because what happens is just what Mike said. People come down there, they see it on the agenda, it's not even ready to be heard. I mean, we would have chased our tail for another hour and wouldn't have solved anything because staff hadn't had a chance or hadn't met with the applicant enough to make it happen. So be thinking about how we can fix this. I'm talking to the staff now because this is something that really we don't look like We got our act together very well, especially with people down there to speak to those items. So, yes, ma'am? Could we put this on the agenda for the June work session? I'm sure we can. So moved. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Yes, sir. I simply say I think it makes sense what you all say. It makes a lot of sense. And the only question I add is whether or not there's any legal reason why they can skip us and come to the committee as a whole as such. But if not, what you said makes a lot of sense. The only thing I might add is that if we were going to do something like that, I would probably recommend that the chairman of our commission be a part of that decision-making process so that they could say that the commission had had some opportunity to review it. And he, in effect, in this case, he sets the agenda in there. Mr. Chairman, I think staff would probably look at a combination of your bylaws and your regulations and advise you according to those. The last statement was very appropriate. Thank you. Advise us accordingly. So anyway, like I said, there was much discussion afterwards, and not to let it go two months thought it was appropriate to bring it up at this time, particularly since it was fresh on the agenda. So any other commission items? Staff items? I don't believe we have anything, Mr. Chair, but this was a hefty agenda, and we applaud you all for getting through it so efficiently. We're taking votes. Anything else? No audience items it doesn't look like? If not, I'll ask for a motion for adjournment. Do we have a second? Second. Motion is made and second. All in favor, please say aye. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.