# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - November 10, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 10, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4111 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4111?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-11-10 - **Last revised**: November 10, 2016 - **Length**: 13,264 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 convened on November 10, 2016, at 1:31 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Bill Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed six agenda items during the session, including approval of minutes, postponements or withdrawals, consent agenda items, final subdivision plans, development plans, and minor plans. All actionable items on the agenda were approved by the commission. The meeting involved 11 motions and votes throughout the proceedings, with no public comments recorded during the session. ## Attendance The meeting on November 10, 2016 had nine members present and two absent. **Present:** • Bill Wilson • Frank Penn • Mike Cravens • Carolyn Richardson • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Joseph Smith • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer **Absent:** • David Drake • Mike Owens **Late:** • None ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on eleven items during the November 10, 2016 meeting, with most items receiving unanimous approval. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Patrick Brewer motioned to approve the October 13, 2016 minutes, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously 9-0 with all members voting in favor: Bill Wilson, Frank Penn, Mike Cravens, Carolyn Richardson, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, Will Berkley, and Patrick Brewer. **Postponements** Two items were postponed by unanimous votes. Frank Penn motioned to postpone PLN-MJDP-16-00037 (HASH AND HOUNSHELL PROPERTY) to December 8, 2016, seconded by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 02:00]. Karen Mundy motioned to postpone PLN-MJSUB-16-00014 (BARBARA M & MASTEN CHILDERS II) to November 17, 2016, seconded by Patrick Brewer [timestamp: 15:00]. Both passed 9-0. **Development Approvals** The commission approved eight development projects, all unanimously except one: - PLAN 2015-135F (BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 2) passed 8-0 with one abstention, subject to staff conditions [timestamp: 10:00] - PLN-MJSUB-16-00012 (NEWTOWN SPRINGS LLC, UNIT 1, SECTIONS 1 & 2) passed 9-0 with staff conditions [timestamp: 20:00] - PLN-MJSUB-16-00013 (HARVEY PROPERTY, LOT 2, SECTION 1) passed 9-0 with staff conditions [timestamp: 30:00] - PLN-MJDP-16-00024 (SOUTH ELKHORN VILLAGE) passed 9-0 with 12 revised staff conditions [timestamp: 40:00] - PLN-MJDP-16-00033 (H AND J PROPERTIES, LLC & TLJ PROPERTIES, LLC) passed 9-0 with 10 revised staff conditions [timestamp: 50:00] - PLN-MJDP-16-00039 (LIBERTY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, BLOCK C) passed 9-0 with 11 revised staff conditions [timestamp: 60:00] - PLN-MJDP-16-00014 (BURKE, HOCKENSMITH & MAGGARD) passed 9-0 with modified staff conditions [timestamp: 70:00] - PLN-MNSUB-16-00036 (TUSCANY) passed 9-0 with 6 staff conditions [timestamp: 80:00] ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The board considered the approval of minutes from their previous meeting held on October 13, 2016. Bill Wilson presented the minutes for review and approval. The minutes were approved without recorded discussion or amendments. **Outcome:** The minutes of the October 13, 2016 meeting were approved. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 02:00] The meeting addressed requests for postponement and withdrawal of agenda items. Matt Carter presented information regarding these requests during this portion of the proceedings. The primary matter discussed was the postponement of the HASH AND HOUNSHELL PROPERTY item. This request was considered as part of the standard process for managing agenda items that require additional time or preparation before proceeding to full consideration. The discussion was informational in nature, with the postponement request being acknowledged and processed according to established procedures. No significant debate or concerns were raised regarding the postponement of the Hash and Hounshell Property matter. This agenda item served as an administrative function to formally address scheduling changes and ensure proper notification of any items that would not be heard as originally scheduled. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 10:00] The consent agenda was presented as agenda item 3 during the November 10, 2016 meeting. Bill Sallee served as the key speaker for this portion of the proceedings. The consent agenda included multiple items for approval, with two specifically identified subdivisions: • BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 2 (AMD) • CHARLOTTE PRICE SUBDIVISION These items were grouped together under the consent agenda format, which typically allows for the simultaneous approval of routine or non-controversial matters without individual discussion of each item. The consent agenda was approved by the governing body without recorded debate or concerns raised during the meeting. This streamlined approach enabled the efficient handling of what appeared to be standard administrative or development-related matters. The approval of these consent agenda items suggests they were considered routine business that did not require extensive deliberation or individual consideration by the board members present. ## Final Subdivision Plans [timestamp: 20:00] The board reviewed and discussed multiple final subdivision plans during agenda item 4. Tom Martin served as the primary speaker presenting the subdivision proposals to the board for consideration. The discussion centered on two main subdivision projects: • **NEWTOWN SPRINGS LLC** - A subdivision plan that was presented for final approval • **HARVEY PROPERTY** - Another subdivision proposal requiring board review and approval Tom Martin provided details on both subdivision plans, though the specific technical aspects and scope of each project were not detailed in the available materials. The board engaged in discussion regarding the merits and compliance of these subdivision proposals with local planning requirements. Following the presentation and board discussion, both subdivision plans received approval. The board voted to approve the final subdivision plans for both NEWTOWN SPRINGS LLC and HARVEY PROPERTY, allowing these projects to move forward to the next phase of development. The approval of these final subdivision plans represents the completion of the planning review process for both properties, enabling the developers to proceed with their respective subdivision projects in accordance with the approved plans and local regulations. ## Development Plans [timestamp: 40:00] The board reviewed and discussed development plans for two properties during agenda item 5. Tom Martin served as the key speaker for this discussion item. The development plans under consideration included: • **SOUTH ELKHORN VILLAGE** - A development proposal that was presented for board review and approval • **H AND J PROPERTIES** - A second development project requiring board consideration Tom Martin presented the details of both development proposals to the board members. The discussion covered the specifics of each project, though the extracted data does not include the particular details of what was presented regarding the scope, timeline, or specifications of either development. Following the presentation and board discussion of both development proposals, the board voted to approve the development plans. The approval encompasses both the South Elkhorn Village project and the H and J Properties development. The meeting materials indicate this was a standard development plan review process, with the board exercising its oversight responsibilities for proposed developments within its jurisdiction. Both projects successfully met the criteria for approval as determined by the board's evaluation during the discussion period. ## Minor Plans [timestamp: 80:00] The commission reviewed and discussed minor plans during agenda item 6, with Bill Sallee serving as the key speaker for this portion of the meeting. The discussion centered on the approval of minor plans, with specific attention given to a project identified as TUSCANY. While the extracted data does not provide detailed information about the nature of these minor plans or the specific characteristics of the TUSCANY project, the item was presented for commission consideration and approval. Bill Sallee led the presentation and discussion of these minor plans, though the specific details of his presentation, any concerns raised by commissioners, or the scope of debate are not available in the provided materials. The commission ultimately approved the minor plans that were presented, including the TUSCANY project. The approval suggests that the plans met the necessary requirements and standards for minor plan approval within the commission's jurisdiction. This agenda item represents routine business for the commission, as minor plans typically require less extensive review than major development proposals while still necessitating official approval to proceed. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of October 13, 2016, minutes - **PLN-MJDP-16-00037** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of HASH AND HOUNSHELL PROPERTY - **PLAN 2015-135F** — passed (8-0): Approval of BOGIE ESTATE, LOT 2 (AMD) - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00014** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of BARBARA M & MASTEN CHILDERS II - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00012** — passed (9-0): Approval of NEWTOWN SPRINGS LLC, UNIT 1, SECTIONS 1 & 2 (AMD) - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00013** — passed (9-0): Approval of HARVEY PROPERTY, LOT 2, SECTION 1 (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-16-00024** — passed (9-0): Approval of SOUTH ELKHORN VILLAGE (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-16-00033** — passed (9-0): Approval of H AND J PROPERTIES, LLC & TLJ PROPERTIES, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-16-00039** — passed (9-0): Approval of LIBERTY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, BLOCK C, LOTS 4-10 & LOTS 44-47 - **PLN-MJDP-16-00014** — passed (9-0): Approval of BURKE, HOCKENSMITH & MAGGARD (AKA: GIBSON & PARSONS INVESTMENTS II, LLC PROPERTY) - **PLN-MNSUB-16-00036** — passed (9-0): Approval of TUSCANY --- ## Full transcript I'll carry around and have a seat in the middle I'll put myself face down The bed in the dress I would do it too wonderful Oh baby, she's ready to be She's got electric boots I'm about to have food And now I ran it in the back of the sand Oh, oh, oh B-b-b-b-banny and the Jess B-b-banny and the Jess Yeah! BIRDLE Thank you. Oh, yeah. Thank you. But it's like a bear on his tuxedo shoulder Christ, what's she doing then? She could be dancing with me She stirs the ice in a glass with her elegant finger I wanna be what she's drinking I'm out. My feet just walking around Hot sun making me sweat Gators getting close hasn't got me yet I can dance, I can talk Only thing about me is the way I walk I can dance, I can sing I'm just standing here selling everything Blue Jean's sick on the beach Her dog's talking to me but she's out of reach She's got a body under that shirt But all she wants to do is rub my face in the dirt Cause I can dance, I can talk Only thing about me is the way I walk I can dance, I can sing I'm just standing here selling Oh, I'm checking everything is in place You never know who's looking on Young punk spilling beer on my shoes Bad guys talking to me trying to steal my blues Thick smoke seal smiling through I never thought so much could happen just to shoot me a fool But I can dance, I can talk The only thing about me is the way that I walk I can dance, I can sing I'm just standing here sailing Oh, I'm checking everything is in place You never know who's looking on The perfect body with a perfect face Mm-hmm. I can walk I can dance I can dance Oh, I can sing All at once I finally took a moment And I'm realizing that You're not coming back And it finally hit me All at once All at once I started counting teardrops And at least I knew you fell My eyes began to swell And all my dreams were shattered All at once Ever since I met you You're the only love I know And I can't forget you Though I will face it all alone All at once I'm drifting on a lonely sea Wishing you'd come back to me And that's all that matters now All at once I'm drifting on a lonely sea, holding on to memories And it hurts me more than you know, so much more than it shows All at once, all at once I looked around and found that you were with another love If someone else is... We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. I'll see you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the November 10th Urban County Planning Commission meeting. Welcome to the people in the audience as well as to our commission members. The first item on our agenda is approval of the minutes. I think the minutes have been presented to you. Any additions or deletions? Hearing none, then I would entertain a motion for approval. Decker. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Brewer and seconded by Ms. Plumlee that we approve the minutes as presented. Any further discussion? Here are none. Please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Okay, the motion carries. Minutes have been approved. Postponements are withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you would turn in your agenda to page 4, item D, plan MJDP 1600037, Hash and Hounsel property. We request one month postponement. Anyone in the audience want to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion for one month postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move postponement of MLP MJDP 337 for one month. Mr. Salley, what's the date of it? Your meeting in November is on the 8th. December 8th. 8th to December the 8th. No, second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, second by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we postpone item PLNMJDP16-00037H and Hound Shell property until December the 8th or one month. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes on your modifus? Thank you very much. Okay. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay. If not, then Mr. Salih, I think we can go to the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'm going to need to recuse myself on the consent agenda. Okay. Mr. Cravens would like to note it that he's... accusing itself. Mr. Salee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have a half dozen items on your consent agenda today. There are three subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee appearing on the agenda. The first is on page 1, item A of your meeting agenda, Plan 2015-135F, an amended final plat for the Bogie Estate, Lot 2. This property has an address of 5898 Old Richmond Road. The next item on your agenda, on page 2, item B, is also on the consent agenda. It is Major Subdivision 16-011, Charlotte Price Subdivision, also known as Claire Snell Rood. An amended final plat for property with an address of 617 Price Avenue. On page 2, item E, this plan is also listed on the consent agenda. It's Major Subdivisions 16-014, Barber M., and Mastin Childers. This is for a subdivision of land located at 4390 Briar Hill Road. You'll see on the consent agenda this plan requires the posting of a sign and an affidavit. We received the affidavit just a moment ago, but I must inform the commission the sign apparently was not up two weeks prior to the meeting today. So we will ask you to pull that from the consent agenda and to postpone it, either to, probably to your next meeting in December. There is one plan that is recommended for approval of a one-year extension by the planning staff. It appears on page 3, item F of your meeting agenda. Plan 2014-73F, it is Wilhite Park Unit 1B, Section 1, an amended final plat for property at 3500 Arbor Drive. There are two development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 4, Item C of your meeting agenda, Major Development Plan 16-034, Jericho Incorporated, Plots 1C and 1D, an amended final development plan for property at 3445 Richmond Road. The last item on your consent agenda appears on page 5, item E. It is Major DP 16-038, Wilhite Park, Unit 1B, Section 1. This property has an address of 3500 Arbor Drive. You'll notice on the consent agenda that this plan requires the Planning Commission to make findings. At your place, you'll see a white sheet of paper that's entitled, Findings for Use of Access Easement. We would ask you to consider making these findings if you approve this plan on your consent agenda. The five items on your consent agenda that are eligible, the Planning Commission can consider approving those, as has been recommended either by your subdivision committee or by the staff at this time, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants would ask that they be removed from your consent agenda to allow further discussion. Thank you, and I'll be glad to answer any questions from the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone like to pull any of these items from the audience? Seeing none on the Commission. If not, then we'll entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda. Obviously, we're pulling E, that's PLNMJSUB, because of the late filing of the affidavit, and the staff hadn't had a chance to review it. So the motion should be five elements of the consent agenda, but making note that item E, PLNMJDP 1638, Will Height, is on the consent agenda, and we'll approve that with findings as been presented. Mr. Chair, move approval of consent agenda. With findings? With the findings, yes. Okay. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, a second by Mr. Frank Penn, that we approve the consent agenda. That is, of course, pulling the postponing PLN MJSUB. That's 16-4 Barbara and Master Childers. but with inserting with findings under PLN-MJDP-16-00038-Willi-Pike. Any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Chairman? Yes. Just for clarification, we might suggest that at this time you just pull it from the consent agenda, and then when we come to it on the agenda, then a motion to postpone would be appropriate. Okay, we'll do that. Thank you. We'll take the five items that we have and adding with findings to EPLN MJDP 1600038 Willite Pike. And the motion has been made with Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Penn has seconded. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay. Would someone go get our other colleague? Yes, you have to. Okay, we're ready to, do we want to go ahead and postpone, Mr. Salih, do we postpone now or later, or when we get to it? When we get to it? It might be easier just to go ahead now and consider that, thank you. Okay, then I will entertain a motion to postpone item, this is on page two, item E, that's PLN MJSUB 1600014. would like to postpone that particular item until the next meeting? Or until December? That's a good question. If we postpone it if we were in a normal month, we would have two weeks and they could change the date on the sign today. Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, your next meeting is next week. The sign would have been up more than 14 days. We would have had two different dates on it. I'm not sure if we should postpone it a week or four weeks for that reason. Tracy, does anyone can give us guidance on it in terms of how long we can postpone? If not, can we just make up something? The sign has been posted about 10 days. So it's been up for 10 days? The ordinance requires 14. So, I mean, you could do it to next week if you want to, or you could just do it to December. Okay, well, actually, all you need is time to review the affidavit, is that correct? Right, the affidavit shows the sign has been up at least 14 days. Okay, so if we did it next week, even though that would be appropriate, let's put it on. As long as it stays up for the next four days or whatever it is. And I have a feeling the applicant would prefer that as well. Okay, then in that case, what we'll do is just postpone until the next meeting time. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Mr. Brewer, that we postpone PLNMJSUB1600014 to next week. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay. The motion carries. That plan has been postponed. Okay. I would ask the indulgence. I think we'll get ready for the next. While we're getting ready for that, let's go to an item, which is performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Cravens, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Richardson to release the call of bonds. Any other discussion on that motion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Thank you. That motion carries. Hey, Carolyn, I'm asking if he's all right. We didn't think an election was over. We're taking care of that. I think we're both, yeah, the ballots were over. Okay. Good afternoon. We're going to move down to the first final record plot, Plan MJ SUV 16-12, Newtown Springs. Would you please speak into the mic? I can barely hear you. There it is. Now it's working. Thank you. Sorry. Okay. We're going to head out Newtown Pike. This is our Newtown Springs area just south of Citation Boulevard, Newtown Pike, and Newtown Springs. They've come in with this to create seven lots on here as far as we have the drugstore or convenience store, and then we have the power discounters down here. They're going to create the lots, re-lotting what they had already for the property. With this, we had our typical sign-offs, which are the first nine conditions. Tenth condition is the Division of Water Quality's approval for CAP. Then we just had a few clean-up conditions, which are typical. And then we asked for, the applicant was asking for a waiver to the land subdivision regulations, which Tom is going to present. Is there any other questions? Any questions? Okay. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, We have passed out to you a waiver report for this particular plan. Again, Newtown, I know you have several, so it's Newtown Springs, LLC, Unit 1, Sections 1 and 2, amended. As Ms. Galt explained, you have Newtown Springs in this location, Newtown Centerway, Citation Boulevard, Newtown Pike. This was the area for the tire discounters. This is Lot 5. This is not part of this plat. Lot 5 was created on a minor plat. Those of you at the subdivision committee may recall we presented that to you. This is the area of the convenience store that is governed by a development plan, as is Lot 5. The specific waiver request is for substantial completion. The substantial completion they're talking about is providing sanitary sewer to the lots. their wish, and this is not uncommon, you all have heard this in other circumstances, and you will again today, they want to develop the site, do the site improvements, and also do the sanitary sewer work when they develop this site. But they want to record this plat. Well, they have to have sewer to record the plat unless you grant the waiver of substantial completion. and along the original waiver request, well it's not the waiver request, is for lot 1, 3, 4, and 4A. There are no plans at this time that have been approved for any development on these lots. This lot, as you know, has been approved for development. Well, staff in reviewing the waiver has put into your report that there are actually two options for this applicant that does not require a waiver on lots 3, 4, and 4A. And those are, number one, you may recall we changed the non-build lot provisions in the ordinance, which would allow them to file a non-build plant in order to create those lots, particularly if they were ready to sell them to a particular client. And then they could get a final development plan approved and proceed with building the infrastructure off that development plan. And that is one of the reasons we changed that, as you all may recall. We created a whole new lot size for non-build. They have that option. The other option is that this plat you may approve as is, and they can then record sections. That's always been done. It's legal. People recorded sections. As the infrastructure is built, then they record a section, and then that section, in effect, will dedicate that public infrastructure. So in this particular case, staff is recommending approval of the waiver for Lot 1 and Lot 1 only. We're not recommending it for 3, 4, and 4A. Because, again, they have two other options to pursue that would make this waiver for those lots unnecessary. And we would add, too, that you don't have any development proposals on those lots. So we really think it's a little premature to be asking for a sewer waiver when you haven't had a development plan approved for those properties. I'll be happy to answer your question. Mr. Penn has a question. Tom, I know that the lot where the tire discanters is going in is not on this plat. Has it gotten that far? Has it gotten to where they have to have a waiver for sewer? They have not requested one, no, sir. Okay, so then we haven't set any precedent here on this development plan. No, sir. Okay, I understand. Thank you. Any questions, any further questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon. Kevin Phillips with Interest Engineering. We have little to add to that. We would agree with that request for just a waiver on lot one, because that is indeed the only lot that's sort of impending. So while the rest of the property is being developed, I have no issues with extending the sewers to those front lots as needs to happen. Okay. Any questions for Ms. Phillips? Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this item? Okay. On the commission. Any questions from the commission? I have one for Mr. Martin. And it has to do with the disapproval for the requested waivers for Lot 3 and 4 and 4A. I guess the question is, why disapproval as opposed to postponement? Well, they requested a waiver for all of them. Oh, they did? So we're recommending disapproval on those options. Okay, that's clear. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, if not, then you have anything else you want to add? Okay, in that case, I think we're finished. We would, first of all, entertain a motion for the approval of the plan or disapproval of the plan, however you want to vote, but a vote on the plan, PLN-MJS-SUB-16-00012. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLN-MJS-SUB-16-12, the Newtown Springs LLC Unit 1, Sections 1 and 2 amended. I recommend approval with the recommendations as presented by staff. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Richardson and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PONMJSUB 16-12 Newtown Springs with the conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, let's go to the waiver. And since it comes in two parts, one with approval, let's take them one at a time. That was my question. Do you want one or two motions? I want two. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the requested waiver for Lot 1 in LPNMJSUB-1612, Newtown Springs, LLC, Unit 1, Sections 1 and 2, amended the findings for that petition for that lot only. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Richardson, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve of the first waiver, PLN-MJS-SUB 16-12, with the findings provided by staff. Any other discussion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on the screen? Okay, we're ready for the second motion, which is the one that has been recommended for disapproval by staff. In this case, I would simply, and Ms. Jones helped me out here on this, because what I'm going to ask the motion to do is to actually be recommended that we follow staff approval for disapproval. Or is that clear enough for you? You can adopt the staff's recommendation. That's what I was thinking. Yeah, that would be good. I'd like to keep the motions in the affirmative to the degree we can. Now, with that said, can I get a motion on this second waiver? Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve of the staff recommendations for Lots 3, 4, and 4A in the findings for waiver of land subdivision regulations for PLN, MJSUB 16-12, Newtown Springs, LLC, Unit 1, Sections 1 and 2 amended. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. The motion was made by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve the staff's recommendation of disapproval for the requested waivers of Lots 3, 4, and 4A, and that's with PLNMJS-SUB 16-12, Newtown Springs. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. that waiver has been disapproved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. We are still in the final subdivision. We have MJ-16-13 Harvey property, lot 2, section 1. This property is located south of Manowar off of Harrodsburg Road, up on Rosetta Way. This is tracery oaks where we had the big oak tree that we had talked about for a while. The applicant is coming in. They want to revise the street cross section because we have the apartments here and the single family homes. We have an elevation change here. So they've come in to request a revision to the street cross section. which then just gives us the first five conditions or our typical sign-offs. We have listed two addition of signature lines. Currently, those lots are all owned by one person, but when this plaque comes in for recording, we want to have the additional address signatures if those have been sold to others. and then they come in to ask for a waiver for the street cross-section to remove the sidewalk off of one side of the street. And Tom is going to give you the information on the waiver. Is there any other questions? Any questions? Okay, thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, If you would be so kind as to search through your paper, and again, you'll find a waiver report. This is for the Harvey property, lot 2, section 1. And we're out on the Harvey property. I know you all are very much aware of where that is, and this is the large apartment area that has been developed in this location. Tracery Oak, which comes up from Schoolhouse, is in this location. You granted a waiver on Tracery Oak, you may recall, for the sidewalk adjacent to this side of the property. And again, for a retaining wall and the tree up at the front end of the property. Well, they are back before you today requesting a waiver along the frontage, or this side of Rosette Way, where it's adjacent to the apartment complex. They have run into rock once again, and that's been a problem on this site and a consistent problem for the applicant on this site. It was a problem on the front end, and again, they've run into an issue with the rock and some grade. Then they're looking at retaining walls. They're looking at having to constrict the cross section of the street and those types of issues. So they're asking for a sidewalk waiver along Rosette Way in this location. And what staff is recommending approval of the waiver, we've also required, and they've agreed, that they do a six-foot sidewalk on this side. And that will tie into the six-foot sidewalk that you all approved along this side of Tracery Oaks. So it will be a very consistent pedestrian system in this subdivision. With that, staff is recommending approval, and be happy to answer your questions you may have. Okay, any questions from Mr. Martin on this waiver? Okay, thank you, applicant. Mr. Commissioner, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Cayley, EA Partners. I'm in agreement with staff's comments and request approval. Very good, thank you. Anyone in the audience have any comments on this agenda item? Okay. back to the commission. I'll have a discussion or I'll be ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I'll make a motion if everybody's ready. I think everybody's ready. All right. I want to move approval of plan 16-00013 for the seven reasons down there. Okay. It's been Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve of Plan MJSUB 16-13 Harvey Properties, Lot 2, Section 1, as amended. Any other discussion? Please vote when it comes upon your monitors. Motion carries. Plan's approved. Now for the waiver. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the waiver for Plan 16-00013 Harvey Properties for reasons by staff. Second. Again, it's been made by Mr. Craven, second by Ms. Mundy, that we approve the waiver with the conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Motion carries. Waiver is approved. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, We are proceeding to page three of your agenda, development plans. This is Plan MJDP 16-24, the South Elkhorn Village amended, and you will find at your seats some revised conditions for this plan. We are still out on Herdsburg Road, a little bit to the east, and across the road from the Harvey property. This is Ramsey's Restaurant and the associated development that is in this area. And again, the South Elkhorn Church is in this location. Here's Old Herdsburg Road, Bowman Bill, the creek, South Elkhorn Creek is down in this location. And it is its proximity to the creek which is really the key to the plan that you see before you today. The plan, and here's your floodplain and your setback, you can see on here. So Ramsey's Restaurant is clearly in the floodplain, and in fact, some portions of it may be in the floodway for the creek. Now, this particular plan was brought unto you originally to be amended to add a cover on this patio and a drive-thru at this location. They have removed the drive-thru. The drive-through was extremely problematic, and so it's gone. So the issue that remains on this plan is the patio and putting a cover on the patio. Because of the floodplain and the floodway, there are very specific engineering standards they have to meet on a patio. For instance, it cannot be connected to the building because then, again, with floodwaters, it could damage this building. We've had similar circumstances down on Manchester Street with a deck, for instance. They had to be engineered and separate from the building. So this is the reason we have on your revised conditions that they have to denote compliance with Article 19. They have met with the water quality engineers, and they're aware of what they're going to have to do to meet those standards under Article 19 for the patio and for the cover, in essence. And it'll have to be engineered. because that's what's required under our ordinance. The other condition that staff has added is that it not be permanently enclosed. And that comes back to our concern about square footage and seating requirements that affect restaurants. Patio, one per eight. You enclose it. It's square footage. It's one per four. So you have a higher parking generator. And, of course, parking's a premium down here. and they have parking leased from the church. And you will notice we have a condition on there. We'd like to see that information updated and provided to staff for our records that they currently have an active lease for the extra parking. And that's 30 extra parking spaces, by the way. So with that, staff has reviewed this and offered the Planning Commission the revised conditions of approval on this particular plan. and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Penn. Mr. Martin, if my memory serves me correct, the reason they were able to put that restaurant in there, that was an existing building. Isn't that right? Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Applicant. Again, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. Again, I'm in agreement with Tom and request approval. Very good. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this plan? Anyone on the commission would like to speak to this plan? Any discussion, further discussion, then we're ready for a motion. I'll go. Ms. Mundy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, I'd like to request approval of PLN MJDP 1624 South Elkhorn Village with the 12 conditions as noted by staff. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we approve Plan MJDP 16-24 South Elkhorn Village amended with the conditions as outlined and proposed by staff. Any other discussion? You're right. Thank you. Thank you. It should be 12 revised conditions as proposed by staff. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. You got that? The seconder is okay with that? Okay, then if that's the case, we're still ready for a motion. Its motion is made. Second is made. No further discussion. Please vote when it comes up on your monitor. Thank you. The motion carries with the 12 revised conditions by staff. Okay, we're at the top of page four. We're looking at a final development plan on MJDP 16-33 H&J properties, LLC and TLJ properties. This property is located off the north side of town. This is North Broadway, Withers Avenue, Paris Avenue. We have the Legends Ball Field up in here. We've just recently done a zone change on the property, and now they're coming back with a final development plan for the property for the uses. We have the typical sign-offs on the plan on the first six conditions. We have a couple cleanups of conditions for noting on the plan. We also have a waiver to the tree canopy on the property. And Discussion 10, Discuss the, Condition 10, Discuss the possible street tree planning. Tom is going to talk with you about that with the waiver request for a reduction in tree canopy. Any other questions? Any questions? Thanks again. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we have passed out to you kind of a gray color sheet. This is the waiver request for your Article 26 canopy requirements. You don't see many of these. You saw one just a brief time ago on Delaware, you might recall, for that adaptive reuse development where they had to request a waiver from the canopy requirements. As Ms. Galt explained, you have a B-1 development, recently zoned, located on North Broadway. The ballpark is right over here. We have Withers and Parris Avenue in this location. That's it. They are requesting a waiver to the canopy requirement. It's a 20% requirement. Now, this is a built environment. There's existing buildings. These are all existing structures, existing parking. Most of the work that's going to be done involves some improvements along with frontage and landscaping. You may recall they were granted variances at the zone change on the landscaping along some of these borders, and that had to do, again, with the physical constraints of this built environment. So subsequently, they have come in with a final, and they have to meet the canopy requirement. And they have the same problem in that they lack enough space in the built environment to get all the trees in to meet that 20% requirement. It was complicated when they came to technical review and KU made a very strong statement about they didn't want any trees through here where KU has an easement. And then with the pavement and that sort of thing, there's really not a lot of good room to put any trees here. There's a small little issue here that's going to be resolved with the landscaping. There's actually a sewer line, a public sewer line in this location. It's currently been contracted by our water quality department. It's going to be rebuilt in this location. But again, this is a very small area, and he's planting small trees and shrubs in this area. And that's kind of the issue that they're faced with. Big trees give you a lot more canopy, but they need more room. Small trees, they don't give you a whole lot of canopy, and they just lack enough room to get quite enough trees in there. So they've done a breakdown of it, and it's a 20% coverage. What they can meet is 16%. So it's a 4% reduction is all it is in a canopy requirement. So with that, staff has reviewed it. We met with the candidate applicant during the week. In fact, we met with him again this morning to try to be sure that we were all on the same page with the trees and what he actually needed in terms of the waiver. And so with that, staff is recommending approval of the reduction from 20% to 16% canopy coverage on this property. Any questions for Mr. Martin on this? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Mark McCain with S. Mark McCain RLA. We are in agreement with the conditions, and we would ask for approval. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this plan? Okay. If not, what about the Commission? Any other discussion? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? No, I just want to make a motion if you're ready. Well, I don't see anyone wanting to say anything, so if you would like to make a motion. We want the waiver separately. I'd like the waiver separately. All right. Two motions, please. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like for approval for PNLMJDP 1633 for the reason for vote. With the 10 conditions, I can move for approval. There are actually 11. 11 conditions. Yeah. As amended. Revised. Yes, sir. I was just going to add as a matter of cleanup, you can drop 10 since we've explained that they cannot get those trees in along Paris. Okay, so we can drop 10? Yes. So we do have 10 revised conditions by staff. Is that correct? Okay, then we'll go back to the original motion. Then we can say that we have 10 revised conditions as presented to the staff. Thank you. Ten has made the motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, it's been made, a motion's been made, Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLNMJDP 16-33 H&J Properties, LLC, and TLJ Properties, LLC, with the 10 revised conditions presented by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you for that motion, and waiver is approved. Oh, that's just the, I'm sorry, that's just the plan that's been approved. We've got the waiver coming up. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the waiver on Plan MJDP 16-33, and the waiver is presented by staff. Grant the waiver. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve the Plan MJDP 16-33H and J Properties, the waiver that has been requested for a minimum of 16 to 20 from 20 to 16 percent canopy. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to get out of here so you don't get out of here. Still have a couple more. Just one, I think, that, like, he's going to Canada. He's got to get a new thing, too. That's right. I'm going to go. You didn't get that up, too, already. Thank you. members of the Planning Commission. We're moving on to page 5 of your agenda. It is Plan MJDP 16-39. It's Liberty Heights Subdivision, Block C. And again, we have passed out to you on this color paper revised conditions for this particular development plan. This is a final development plan located at Winchester Road and Detroit Avenue. The speedway is over in this location. You originally saw this plan with a fast food restaurant proposed on it as part of the zone change. They have come back with a final development plan. They are proposing a 3,800-square-foot convenience store with a drive-thru in this location. You have your gas canopy, six pumps in this location. They have 21 parking spaces proposed at this time. and underground detention, if necessary, will be located here in this part of the development. When the plan was originally brought in, staff had some concerns, considerable concerns, again, about full access to Winchester Road. You can see they've modified this to right in, right out. They are maintaining full access to Detroit Avenue. They have an access drive. Again, here's your drive-through window to the convenience store. Those have become popular, apparently. And out here, again, one way to Detroit Avenue. In addition to our concerns, of course, about the access point here, they originally had parking proposed in this location, and staff had concerns about the residential houses here and about parking in this location and lights and that sort of thing, although there is a buffer, and there was a buffer imposed at the time of the zone change as well. But that parking also, you had your canopy here, you've got people here, your stacking for this window is all back into here and was creating conflict. And staff, your planning staff in traffic had a lot of concern about that internal conflict with the window and the stacking, with backing, people moving through the lot. There just seemed to be a lot of conflict, so you add that into connection with people parking and lights coming in and hitting these residential units. That was of big concern to staff. And then, this is a very large, healthy tree in this location. And so staff, in concern, because some of these trees are coming down. And this one can stay. and this one we felt like was worthy of preservation if we addressed all the issues here. The conflict with the parking, the lighting, the disturbance that would associate with these residential dwelling units. So with that, the applicant brought in a new plan. And you can see, they've taken away the parking, they have the tree located where it can be preserved and protected, and we don't have that problem with lights and that sort of thing affecting the residential units. So we see this as a very, very positive development on this plan. And with that, you can see we have passed out these amended conditions. We are recommending approval. They are pretty standard development plan sign-offs. And there is a consolidation of property prior to plan certification, by the way. And that is what we put up for you. And Mr. Sally is going to explain that plan to you. But that is the consolidation plan for this property. They will also have to have Kentucky Department of Transportation approval of this access and this pork chop that they're proposing. But with that, staff is recommending approval of the development plan. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, Ms. Mundy. Tom, I'm sure we addressed this, and I'm being senile, I guess, right now. The lights on this, because that's a residential area, did we, in the past, I'm sure we must have addressed the lighting on this, that this will be more... The canopy lighting? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Less bright lighting. We did discuss that, and they have agreed to have it pointed downward, and they are going to measure the light, and so it will be zero at the property line. That is what they, I believe, said to the committee, in fact. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, applicant. I'm sorry. I apologize. No, that's okay. With your indulgence, we can present to you, if you like, the plat for the same property. That would be good. Okay. This item is on page 6, item 2 of your meeting agenda. This is a minor subdivision plan that the staff is referring to the Planning Commission. It's Minor Subdivision 16-030, also Liberty Heights Subdivision Block C, Lots 4-10 and 44-47. This is the consolidation plat that Mr. Martin mentioned earlier. While the development plan was filed and under review by the staff, we also received this Minor Subdivision plan for the same property. Again, we have Detroit Avenue and Winchester Road, not quite at the same orientation as this. but it does involve the exact same property boundary. This PLAT proposes to take all of these lots, combine them into one, and the rear of four lots on Dayton Avenue and combine them into the track. You may recall, but you may not recall, that at the time of the zone change, these parcels were also included in the zone change, because at that time we were looking at a possible fast food restaurant, and they had a drive-through and they needed additional parking for that use. It's been the staff's opinion under this review that for a convenience store, this parking is just not as important for that use as it would have been for a fast food restaurant that has much more traffic and drive-throughs and conflicts on the site. The staff is referring this to the Commission for a couple of reasons. First, we would like to add a number of conditions for the approval of this plat. First, that the Addressing Office approve the address for this property as they will for the development plan. Secondly, that we document water quality's approval prior to the plan. The reason for that is once these lots are consolidated, the use of record may be more difficult to account for. And when I say use of record, each lot as a residence has a historical use for sanitary sewer. And by combining them all at one, now the property will have one record for it. We don't know if that will be a problem or not, but this seems to us to be a fairly easy way to avoid any potential problem with the capacity assurance program for that reason alone. Thirdly, we think this should also be an easement plat so that we can create a tree preservation area in the vicinity of what's been identified as a 26-inch, originally was called a box elder we understand now it's an elm tree we would like that to have a tree protection area associated with it on this portion of the property thirdly adding the applicable tree preservation note to this plat number five to add the 20-foot building line along winchester road as it's shown on the development plan just to clean up condition there to denote that these lots on Dayton that are remaining after consolidation will only be used for single-family residential purposes. They are in an R2 zone, and of course R2 does allow duplex use. However, if they are duplexed, the lots are becoming smaller, so they'll be less conforming to the R2 requirements. There is no issue if they're all used for single-family detached housing because the lot size is much smaller, then will remain. And actually, one of the lots is currently already vacant, so it may have a future for residential as well. And then finally, just to denote the Planning Commission's approval date on the plan, either in the certification or elsewhere on the plan. So we are fine recommending approval of this plan with those changes that I've outlined. But before you hear from the applicant, I'd be glad to answer any questions about our review of this plan concurrent with the development plan that you've been presenting. Any questions for Mr. Salih on this? Thank you. I should have mentioned you have a handout from the staff, Liberty Heights, on a white sheet of paper that outlines these seven conditions. I apologize for not doing that earlier. Thank you. Okay, now applicant. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. On the development plan, we're in agreement with the revised 11 staff conditions. And then as far as the minor amended plan, we're in agreement with the seven conditions proposed by the staff. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions. Good. Any other questions for the applicant? I think that's it. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this plan? Okay. Back to the commission. And what we'll do is take two motions, one to approve or to vote on, I should say, Plan 16-39, and then we'll have a separate motion for what we'll call the minor subdivision plan with the conditions outlined by staff on that. So if there's no further discussion on this particular activity, then we can. Yes, sir, Mr. Berkley. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of Plan 16-39 Liberty Heights for the 11 reasons noted by staff. This is the development plan. It's the revised. Yeah, the revised conditions. The revised, yeah, the 11 revised conditions. Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Berkeley, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we approve Plan MJDP 16-39 Liberty Heights Subdivision Block C, Lots 4-10 and Lots 44-47 with 11 revised conditions as outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of Plan MNSUB 16-30, the minor subdivision plan, for the seven reasons noted by staff, for seven conditions. Second. Okay, so again, the motion has been made by Mr. Will Berkeley and seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith that we approve the plan MNSUB 16-30 Liberty Heights Subdivision Block C, Lots 4-10 and 44-47. This is a minor subdivision plan, and it has seven conditions as outlined by staff, and those go along with the motion. Any other discussion on the motion? Shall we change the name of the tree? Shall we change the name of the tree? Where is that? Number four. Number four? Yes, it can be changed from box elder to elm. Okay, okay. From box elder to elm. I'm with that. Okay, seconder, are you okay with that? Okay, in that case, then, number three, We're revising the Box Elder Tree to Elm Tree on Parcel 6 and 8. That's in agreement with everybody. Any other discussion now on the revised motion and second? Okay. If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have to prove it would find it? No, it's a future for the staff to pass out. It's fine. Yeah, so you have to have a place. Okay, Mr. Mark. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next plan on your agenda is at the bottom of page 5. It is Plan MJDP 16-14. This is Burke, Hockenspith, and Maggard, also known as Gibson and Parson Investments. Now, this plan has been brought back to you solely for a waiver request. You may recall that you have recently approved this final development plan for this property. Here's Georgetown Road, the frontage, at the intersection with Sandersville Road. This is Atoma Drive with the existing industrial commercial type developments in this location. This area, again, as you can see, was approved with the neighborhood grocery, a large distributor in this location, and outlots here with access at this location, access to Georgetown Road, right in, right out, at this location as well. Well, Sandersville, you have an access easement in this location. You may recall that there were access waivers associated with this property, a few feet, both on Sandersville for this, as well as the right in, right out relative to the intersection on Georgetown Road. In addition to the access waiver, there was a waiver requested for the sanitary sewer. And again, you may recall that discussion that this site is challenged in terms of the sanitary sewer. There's options. One is to try to bore under Georgetown Road for part of the property. The other option would be to go to this area, to sanitary sewer manholes that are available in this area. And again, that's for part of the property. And as a part of that discussion, and the reason for that original waiver, was they had determined that they couldn't serve the entire property by gravity sewer, or they were worried that they could not without further investigation. And this, by the way, is the Royal Springs Aquifer line in this location. So there was discussion, and they asked for a waiver to be allowed to put in a pump station if necessary. Now, a pump station would, and it was a private pump station, and that was stressed in that previous waiver report, would also have a force main that would have to go to the public sewer. So subsequently, they have investigated the property, and they have come back to you today because what they've discovered that they are going to have to use a pump station and a force main in order to serve part of this property. Now, as late as 1 o'clock, a little after 1 o'clock this afternoon, your planning staff was having a discussion with engineering. The discussion started several days ago and continued during a meeting yesterday afternoon, about not quite 24 hours ago. And our engineering department expressed some concerns about granting the waiver at this time for all of the property because they had not seen a comprehensive plan on the appropriate way to sewer this property. And Hillard is certainly here, Mr. Newman, and he can speak for engineering. I will tell you that in our conversations, they have expressed concern with the pump station and maintenance of the pump station and associated problems with maintaining a pump station. And they have recommended, and that is still something that is being reviewed with the applicant, the possibility of individual grinder pumps into and utilizing, again, the force main. There will be a force main on the property. And one of the advantages of the grinder pumps is that then as each lot is developed individually, they'll have their own pump, and they'll be responsible for their own pump. Staff has some concerns that if you had a centralized pump station and it was to go out of service, then everybody loses their sewer. Everybody on their pump station loses their sewer service at that time, along with the obvious issues with maintenance and that sort of thing. So that is still under review and under discussion with the applicant and the Division of Engineering. So at this time, the applicant has stated that they are requesting a waiver of substantial completion on the sewer for only these two lots because they can be served by gravity. And again, our conversation with Division of Engineering indicates agreement that there's no problem with granting the substantial completion waiver and then allow, once again, you heard it earlier today, they will build the sewer at the same time they do all the public improvements and the site improvements for lot number one, which is in effect driving this development at this time. And so with that, staff is recommending approval of the waiver, but only as it applies to these lots that can be served by gravity sewer. And there's some additional details. I'm sure the applicant will want you to know about some issues with the sewer in this area that they've discovered. There's always been issues with the property, and there's some additional issues that have come up as they've investigated the property. And with that, we have also put up for you, and it is next on your agenda, a minor development plan that is going to be presented by Mr. Sally. This is the lot right here. They're calling it lot two. This is this lot right here that they're creating with this minor non-billed plat. And staff is bringing it back to you, one, because of the waiver request, but just as importantly, you see the remnant lot in this very odd shape. That odd shape is the area of improvements and right-of-way dedication for Sandersville Road. And staff was concerned about the timing and when we would achieve that. And again, you sell this lot, you get a different entity in here. Staff's concern is who's going to be responsible for these improvements and when will they be done. Oh, that is one reason you see before you a discussion on this particular plat. And I don't know who left the G out on the Georgetown. I've done that before, too. With that, I'll answer any questions you may have for me on the development plan waiver. Mr. Vian has a question. You're smarter than I am. I didn't even notice it. Just now, notice it. Where we just do those two lots, I understand it. Explain to me, on the other three lots, especially the one that's over on the Georgetown aquifer, is a grinder pump allowed in that? It'll be part of the review process, and that is a concern for Royal Springs Aquifer because of the potential issues they present to the groundwater. I mean, I don't know whether I'll see this or not, but the question that came up to me is, is that even possible in the aquifer? I believe it is, but again, it has to be reviewed and designed appropriately. That's not under our discussion today. And I'm sure their engineer can help address that issue as well. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, the very next item on your agenda is why I'm at the podium. It's on page 6, item 1. As Mr. Martin has indicated, we have a minor subdivision plan that's also been filed for the same property. It's minor subdivision 16-029, Burke, Hawkinsmith, and Maggard's lot 1 and 2. This, as Mr. Martin told you, is a non-building minor subdivision plan. It proposes to take the larger property and split it into two. and, as he's indicated to you, the driving factor is their hope to create this lot so that it can be transferred to allow this lot to begin development. This minor plan, as Mr. Martin told you as well, was fairly typical, with the exception of this small sliver that is to remain in the larger lot. This was most unusual and certainly drew the attention of the staff right away. There since has been dialogue with the applicant and Mr. Murphy about the timing of these improvements. And as you can see from the staff recommendation for this minor plan on the green sheet, this is the second condition that's listed. The timing notes that Mr. Martin referred to on the development plan under our second condition, we are recommending that that same information go on this plat, just so all parties are aware of it. at the time any of these properties are transferred. The first condition that the staff is recommending for approval of this plan is just a cleanup. Both lots have the same address. We just want the addressing office to tell us what addresses they would like and make that correction of the plan. Thirdly, a bit of an unusual condition, we would ask that a building line be applied to lot 2, which is the smaller of the two lots. Staff thinks this may be the only time that the Planning Commission will actually see this lot on a subdivision plan. So we would like to go ahead and establish the building line on that one. This one, we're fairly confident we will see a further plan, a subdivision plan on that lot. Thirdly, just another cleanup, just the non-building note that's on the plan should be updated to reflect the current language. Fifth, the site statistics indicate a post-consolidation. That is fairly common for a consolidation plat, but this is not a consolidation plat. So again, just another cleanup condition on that. And then finally, as we often do when we recommend a minor plan be reviewed by the Commission, just a notation of the date that the Commission has reviewed and perhaps approved this plan. Before you hear from the applicant, I would tell you one last thing. We've circulated a starting point for the type of information on the improvements note from an email from Mr. Murphy. We're not certain that this is the final language, but it's a good starting point, and this is kind of the concept and the idea that we're talking about with them as to the timing issues. Before you hear from the applicant, I'd be glad to answer any questions about our recommendation on the minor non-building plat that's been referred to. Okay, Mr. Penn. Ben, as I can't get my colleague next door to ask this question, I'll ask it. So if we do this minor plat, then the other part of that property that's not the minor plat now, they'll have to be responsible for doing the improvements on Sandersville Road? That's our understanding, is that these improvements will be negotiated between the parties, and they will be done in conjunction with the development on this lot. So, for instance, when this property is developed, these improvements will be done at the same time. That's our understanding. So part of the need for this information is to kind of document timing and responsibility for all those. So once we work that out, I think we would apply the same note to both plans so that everyone knows, you know, kind of that this will not be a permanent condition. but it does take it off the sale of that lot. Correct. It will not be a part. The land itself won't be a part of that lot. Whether their agreement covers that or not will be a private matter. Interesting. Any other questions for Mr. Salley? Thank you. Thank you. Applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here representing the applicant. Matt Carter is with me, too, also. The applicant is Kentucky Hill Properties, LLC, which is the owner of the property. You've seen this before. Matt Burton is a little under the weather today who couldn't be here. He sends his apologies. We have modified our waiver request, as Mr. Selle and Mr. Martin mentioned to you, from what we originally submitted to you. When we submitted it to you, we were asking for a waiver of the completion requirements that say when you have to complete things and when you post a bond for the entire property. And after we submitted that, we got into discussions with the Division of Engineering about what type of pump station would be used for the property. and when Mr. Carter did further study, we pointed out we can gravity flow this lot, which is lot four, and lot five down here. So these can get served by gravity, but there will need to be a pump station or multiple pumps on these three lots. So the discussion was, as Mr. Martin pointed out, do we do one pump for each lot or one pump to serve three lots? and that hasn't been totally determined yet. That's got to be worked out. So staff was hesitant to grant a waiver for all those which we understand, so we're basically cutting back and asking for the waiver for only these two lots, which are gravity flow lots. So meantime, Mr. Burton, our client, has hit a grocery store here, is breathing down their neck because they want to get a building permit and they want to get building. So we were asking for a waiver of the completion requirements for the sewers and the Sandersville Road improvements, but only going to these two lots right here. These two we're removing the waiver request from, so when those are built, we'll have to post the normal bonds for all those improvements. Now the question has been raised, okay, when is Sandersville Road improvements going to be, and what is this thing up here, the little sliver between the lot where the grocery store is and Sandersville Road. They're doing that because it's going to be the responsibility of our client, Mr. Burton, to build the improvements to Sandersville Road. So the grocery store coming in said, well, you're going to do it. It's going to be on your property. So that's why this is shaped this way. But with the notes that have been proposed, what we're doing is we're going to post the bond. We're asking for a waiver of completion requirements, not a waiver of the bond. So we're going to be posting the bond for the cost of doing all of these Sandersville Road improvements, along with getting the sewer to these lots four and five on here. And the plan is to be doing this right away, do the Sandersville Road improvements right away. to everybody's benefit on this property as well as in the area to get those Sandersville Road improvements done. So those will be part of the bond that would be posted for the full improvement costs for Sandersville Road and for getting the sewers to these two lots. So with our modification, I'm just asking one modification, or think of the, or maybe two, of the staff report, the white, well, mine's a white sheet. I don't know what color of yours all is. On page two, number one is to note that the waiver is for lots four and five. That's four. That's five, not just four, as the staff, it states in the report at one point lot four, but we just want to clarify it's lot four and five. And then on the subject to the following requirements, on B, where it says a surety for the entire cost of all the required public infrastructure, we'd like to put in there serving lots 4 and 5 shall be submitted to the Division of Engineering prior to issuance of a ground disturbance permit. And that's just to clarify that we're doing the cost of these two lots, not the cost of these three, because we're not asking for the waiver on 1, 2, and 3 anymore, because we're going to have to post the bond and do all the completion requirements on 1, 2, and 3 anyway. So when they calculate the cost of the bond for lots 4 and 5, it's going to include the sewers to these two properties and the improvements along Sandersville Road along here, the entire improvements along our frontage of Sandersville Road on that. We just don't want to double bond for these sewers in the back because we're going to have to do that separately anyway since we've modified our waiver only to apply to these two lots. So, again, in B, I'd just like to, after it says all the required public infrastructures, I'd like to add in serving lots 4 and 5 shall be submitted to the Division of Engineering. Mr. Murphy, I'm lost. Okay, I'm not sure. I might be too, so, yeah. Where are you at this? Well, I'm on the findings for petition for waiver of land subdivision regulations. That one, yeah, that this Monday has. On page two, the back side of that, where you get down to where the staff recommends approval, and then below that, this recommendation is made subject to the following requirements. my remarks went to item B under there, the second to last line on the report there. Okay, and what was your recommendation? After the words, all the required public infrastructures, just add the words serving lots 4 and 5 shall be submitted to the Division of Engineering, et cetera, there. Okay, got it. All right. That's as on the screen. Okay. Just put that. Okay. Any questions? Anyone in the audience want to speak to this? Okay. Great. Back to the commission. Just one thing. Note there on the plan, it says the Planning Commission approved this plan at the September the 8th, 2016 meeting. Does that mean that we don't have to do that anymore and just go to the waiver? Yes, sir. That's exactly what that means. The only request before you today is the waiver. Okay. Staff has included the minor plan as well since it involves the same property. So, and I assume that the staff is okay with the changes as recommended by the applicant? Okay. Very good. Okay. Any other discussion related to it? Are we clear about what we're doing here? Well, let me, we're up for a waiver, and there's been a change. The staff has recommended approval of the waiver, but in the recommendations made subject to the following, the applicant says A is okay, but B wants to insert after public structures serving lots 4 and 5, be clear that it's just four and five and not the whole area there shall be submitted to eight, et cetera, et cetera, okay? And then after we do the waiver, then we can go back to the minor subdivision plan. Anything else, Mr. President? If I may add, on item A as I'm looking at it, no certificate of occupancy or zoning compliance permit shall be issued for, I think that just applies to lots one, two, and three until it's decided whether there's a private pump station or individual grinder pumps, because four and five are gravity, right, Matt? So if we could modify A, where it says zoning compliance permit, four lots, one, two, or three shall be issued until the development. I think that's what we're intending to do. So no certificate of occupancy for zoning compliance permit for lots, Our permit shall be for lots 1, 2, and 3. Is that? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Although I understand the applicant's concern, I think if you read that, it says for the development until sanitary service utilizing the private pump station or individual grinder pumps. So if they're using gravity, they're exempted from that requirement. All will be drawn by request. Okay. I want a clarification. Yes, sir. Do we need in here somewhere that the bonding for the Sandoval Road will be? I believe that is what Mr. Murphy has addressed with his language. On his testimony, do we need that anywhere in the written? I think it's in B. It's now in there. Okay. It's in B. It's part of the requirements. It's part of the requirements. Thank you. Okay. Now I think we're clear now what we're going to do. We're going to actually work on the waiver as such. The applicant has indicated he'd just like a kind of a modification to B, and it's on your screen serving lots 4 and 5. So we'll do the waiver first. Ms. Mundy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move for approval of the waiver of land subdivision regulations for PLN, MJDP 16-14, Burke, Hawkins, Smith, and Maggard, as recommended by staff with one minor change, and that would be changing item B to read, a surety for the entire cost of all of the required public infrastructure serving lots four and five shall be submitted to the Division of Engineering prior to the issuance of a ground disturbance permit. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve the waiver of PLN-MJDP 16-14 Burke, Hockensmith, and MAGA, with the conditions provided by staff with a modification to Section B, a surety for the entire cost of all the required public infrastructure serving lots 4 and 5 shall be submitted to the Division of Engineering prior to the issuance of ground disturbance permit. That is the motion. That's the second-ended discussion. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, now we'll move to the minor subdivision plan, which is 16-29, and with the conditions as outlined by staff. Any other discussion on that? If not, we're going to take a motion for that. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN-MJ-SUB-1629, Burke-Hawkinsmith-and-Maggard, Lots 1 and 2, with recommendations provided by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MNSUB 16-29, Burke-Hawkins-Smith and Maggot Lots 1 and 2 with the conditions outlined by staff. Those six conditions outlined by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Okay, the motion carries. Got one more manor tuscan here. This right coming up here. I'm going to make a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The last plan, I believe, that's left on your agenda is on page 6. It's item 3 under Minor Plans. This is Minor Subdivision 16-036 for a portion of Tuscany. And the Tuscany development has an address of 1970 Winchester Road and 2625 Sir Barton Way. The plan that the staff is referring to you is a combination of a consolidation plat and a non-building plat. You've heard a lot today about both types of plats in the two previous minors we've referred to. One was a non-building, one was a consolidation. This is a combination of the two. We've handed out two items to you. One is a copy of a portion of Article II of the subdivision regulations dealing with consolidation plans, and the second is a highlighted portion of the plan itself. Our subdivision regulations advise that with a consolidation plan, you should, in the highlighted area, result in no more separate transferable parcels after the consolidation than you start with. And that is because, as you know, any final subdivision plan that proposes to subdivide property, other than generally a non-building plat, has to come to the Planning Commission for approval. Because this is a non-building plat, we do think that you can approve it in generally the current form that it has. But I would like to explain why the staff is referring this plan to the Commission. The property is a portion of Tuscany on Sir Barton Way, south of the signalized intersection with Winchester Road, which is just off the platte about here. Most people know that this is where the new public high school is under development on Winchester Road and it will have an access approximately at this location. A roadway that the Commission has discussed many times is Meeting Street. Meeting Street is currently built to this area and probably if it's not built it's at least been graded for much of this remaining portion here and eventually that street will connect to Sir Barton Way. This plat does not propose to create or plat that right-of-way. It's just showing it for frame of reference. Part of the plat, though, does cover where Meeting Street eventually is planned to intersect Sir Barton Way. This property has two lots, one shown in orange, very odd configuration, and a bit more conventional property of about 17 acres here. the consolidation portion is to join a portion of the meeting street right of way in the future with the oddly shaped parcel which is just over 10 acres in size it has an address that's shown of 2625 sir barton way the reason the staff is referring this to the commission is the larger portion of the plat and of the existing property on the second sheet of the handout to you, will be created if this plat is recorded because there is a line proposed generally in this area of the property that will sever the larger piece from the smaller piece. So this is a consolidation plat that will result in one more arsel than exists currently today. That's the reason we're referring it. We've handed out to you our recommendation on the plat, on the purple sheet. It is for approval of the plat. The first is a cleanup condition, just that the addressing office approve the address of the 17-acre parcel as part of this and is, if necessary, to change one of the other two addresses that currently exist on the property. Secondly, the staff proposes that this plat should also become an easement minor plat because, with the creation of this plat, this lot will have no current street access. That is because, again, Meeting Street is not dedicated. It does not exist currently. So it will be a landlocked parcel. So there will be a need to create some sort of access, probably to Sir Barton Way in the interim, until such time as the street is completed and is dedicated. Talk to Mr. Cayley briefly by email about a temporary access. That would be acceptable to the staff. We have asked that traffic engineering review that and also approve whatever arrangement is thought of in that way. Thirdly, we would ask that the addition of a 20-foot building line be provided along the street there, Sir Barton Way, and to label the remaining parcel, here is parcel number four on the plan. Again, we have parcels one, two, and three identified. The remaining parcel of about 210 acres would be parcel four. Finally, to clarify the site statistics, again, to refer to four parcels and to denote the date of the Planning Commission's consideration and possible approval of this plat. It's a little bit complicated. Certainly, unusual geometry, I think, is a proper term to describe this plat. But before you consider voting on it, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about either why we've referred this to you or about our recommendation today. Mr. Penn has a question Bill, if you're going to put a temporary easement out on Sir Barton, is the reason that's all being planted as one continuous piece of property across Sir Barton to keep from putting a permanent access there? I do not know the purpose I don't understand why those two have to connect They don't necessarily, the access would be to the yellow parcel I understand It will be landlocked. So it could be temporarily through this area. It may be able to be temporarily provided here. The staff views it as something that won't be long-lasting only because we know this street will be in by the time the school opens. I'm sure Mr. Cayley will have an answer for that. I hope he can answer your question better than I have. Any other questions for Mr. Sally? Okay, thank you. Thank you. the applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley. The answer is the Platte is trying to get all of the property that is about to be dedicated as Meeting Street out of the current property owner's possession and into Haymaker Development. That's why we're here. The temporary access easement would run from Sir Barton over to the 17-acre larger track remaining. I suspect it will be about 30 days. If I don't have the Meeting Street Platte recorded in 30 days, I'll be back in front of you asking for an extension. and the odd shape comes from i think about 12 years ago when we were first getting unit one subdivided there was requirements with the property owners that to take unit one we had to have the land along sir barton which was created more with the commercial development and over to a winchester road portion behind the old household so it is an extremely odd shaped property and it was part of an earlier agreement with an acreage size and exact frontage that had to be made to long areas. Thank you. Is that clearer? No. Okay. I understand because that house was an odd shape thing here. Ms. Bundy has a question for you. Yeah, I guess I probably did something I shouldn't have done yesterday and I drove down Meeting Street all the way out. I've done that too. that I wasn't off-roading either. It is all but complete, I think, but the dedication and maybe a final surface. Final surface, yeah. Final surface. So you're looking at that temporary being about 30 days? Yes. Okay. I'm hoping. They were going to do final surface before the winter came, but negotiations with engineering, they preferred to have it bonded, so we're getting that dollar amount established now. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. At this time, we'll have any additional discussion or a motion. Last item on the agenda. I can do it. Mr. Chair. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Berkley. I'm going to move for approval of PLN-MN-SUB 16-36 for the six reasons noted by staff. Okay, Mr. Berkley moves that we approve, and Mr. Brewer seconds that we approve PLN-MS-SUB 16-36 Tuscany with the six conditions identified by staff. Any other additional discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes on your monitors. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other items from staff that you want to discuss? Anything else? Mr. Chair, I do want to point out that on the next meeting dates, we have a Planning Commission work session listed in December for December 22nd. That will not take place, and if we need to make an official change to the calendar, we'll do that before that time. But I just didn't want you all to think we'd be asking you all to come back in three days before Christmas for a meeting. So your last meeting in December will be December the 15th. I'd be delighted to come in if I could find a parking space. There will be plenty available that day. Any other items, serious items, do come before the Commission, from the Commission itself. If not, there's no other items without objection. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.