# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - July 10, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · July 10, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/549 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/549?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-07-10 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 19,724 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 July 10, 2008, at 1:36 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting was presided over by Randall Vaughn. The Commission addressed a total of 6 agenda items, all of which were subdivision-related matters. Of those, 5 items were approved and 1 — Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 1 — was postponed. Across the meeting, 17 motions and votes were taken. No public comments were heard, and no presentations are recorded in the meeting data. ## Attendance All eight Commission members were present at the July 10, 2008 meeting. No members were absent or late. **Present:** - Randall Vaughn - Neill Day - Ed Holmes - Carolyn Richardson - Joan Whitman - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Mike Cravens - Frank Penn ## Votes and Decisions All votes at the July 10, 2008 Commission meeting were taken by voice vote. Eight commissioners participated in most votes: Randall Vaughn, Neill Day, Ed Holmes, Carolyn Richardson, Joan Whitman, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Mike Cravens, and Frank Penn. **Postponements and Withdrawals** - **DP 2008-80** (Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7): Postponed to August 14, 2008. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:08:59] - **PLAN 2008-9P** (Hillenmeyer Property): Withdrawn. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Frank Penn. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:10:33] - **PLAN 2008-44F** (High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17): Postponed to August 14, 2008. Motion by Joan Whitman, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:11:36] - **DP 2008-77** (Michael Gentry Property): Postponed to August 14, 2008. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Neill Day. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:12:39] - **DP 2008-79** (Cardinal Hill Hospital): Postponed to August 14, 2008. Motion by Ed Holmes, seconded by Frank Penn. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:13:43] - **PLAN 2008-71P** (Hampton Springs): Postponed to August 14, 2008. Motion by Neill Day, seconded by Frank Penn. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:14:47] - **PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F** (Thomas Communications, Inc., Units 1-C and 1-D): Postponed to August 14, 2008. Motion by Joan Whitman, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:15:55] - **PLAN 2008-76F** (Bogie Estate, Lot 1): Postponed to August 14, 2008. Motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:17:01] - **DP 2008-60** (Blackford Town Center): Postponed to September 11, 2008. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:18:48] - **DP 2008-88** (Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 1): Postponed to August 14, 2008. Motion by Neill Day, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 2:16:28] **Approvals** - **Consent agenda** (all items except PLAN 2008-77F): Approved. Motion by Neill Day, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 0:25:40] - **PLAN 2008-77F** (East Bridgeford Land & Dev. Co., Phase 1, Unit 2): Approved subject to 12 conditions. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 0:40:04] - **PLAN 2008-78F, PLAN 2008-79F, PLAN 2008-80F** (Mahan, Units 1-A, 1-B, 1-C): Approved subject to conditions listed by staff. Motion by Neill Day, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 0:52:57] - **PLAN 2007-103F** (Bluegrass Aspendale, Single-Family Area, Phase 3, Section 4): Reapproved subject to the previous seven conditions. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 1:31:33] - **DP 2008-51** (Palumbo Property, Garden Springs, Unit 1-S): Approved subject to 17 conditions. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 1:35:18] - **DP 2008-85** (South Hill Gardens): Approved subject to 8 conditions, with "if necessary" added to condition 7. Motion by Neill Day, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 1:42:18] - **Call and release of bonds** as presented: Approved. Motion by Neill Day, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed 8–0. [timestamp: 2:17:01] ## Contested Items - **Access Point for Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 1:** The commission was divided over whether to permit an access point on Beaumont Circle for this development. The disagreement resulted in a 4-4 tie vote, with commissioners splitting evenly on the question. Because the vote was tied, the motion did not carry. No additional details about the specific arguments made on either side are available in the meeting record. ## East Bridgeford Land & Dev. Co., Phase 1, Unit 2 **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2008-77F [timestamp: 27:09] The Commission took up agenda item PLAN 2008-77F, a discussion item concerning a proposal by East Bridgeford Land & Dev. Co. to subdivide a 33-acre tract into two parcels as part of Phase 1, Unit 2 of their development plan. Key speakers on this item were **Tom Martin** and **Rory Kahly**. The discussion centered on the subdivision proposal, with concerns raised regarding **access easements** and **scenic resource areas** associated with the tract. These issues were debated as part of the Commission's review of whether the proposed subdivision adequately addressed the relevant regulatory requirements tied to those features. The item was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. ## Mahan, Units 1-A, 1-B, 1-C **Agenda Items:** PLAN 2008-78F, PLAN 2008-79F, PLAN 2008-80F [timestamp: 41:29] The Commission took up three related final plat applications — PLAN 2008-78F, PLAN 2008-79F, and PLAN 2008-80F — covering Units 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C of the Mahan subdivision. The discussion centered on the creation of single-family lots and the plans' compliance with Article 4-5(b) of the Land Subdivision Regulations. Key speakers during this agenda item included **Cheryl Gallt** and **Rory Kahly**, who participated in the presentation and discussion of the three units. The plans were reviewed for conformance with the applicable subdivision regulations, with Article 4-5(b) serving as the primary regulatory framework under consideration. Following discussion, the Commission approved all three final plat applications. ## Bluegrass Aspendale, Single-Family Area, Phase 3, Section 4 **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2007-103F [timestamp: 1:26:34] The Commission took up PLAN 2007-103F, concerning the Bluegrass Aspendale Single-Family Area, Phase 3, Section 4. Key speakers on this item were **Jimmy Emmons** and **Katie Beard**. The plan was brought before the Commission for reapproval, covering **55 single-family lots**. As a reapproval, the previously established conditions associated with the plan remained applicable and carried forward without modification. The Commission approved the plan. ## Palumbo Property, Garden Springs, Unit 1-S **Agenda Item: DP 2008-51** [timestamp: 1:32:37] The Commission took up a discussion item concerning the Palumbo Property located in Garden Springs, Unit 1-S. The plan under review proposed the addition of a car wash to the site, and revised site statistics were presented to the Commission as part of the discussion. Key speakers on this item included **Chris Taylor** and **Gary Roland**. The revised site statistics presented were specifically aimed at addressing parking concerns that had been raised in connection with the proposed development. The inclusion of a car wash represented a change to the previously considered plan for the property, necessitating a fresh look at how the site would accommodate vehicles and meet parking requirements. The Commission discussed the revisions and the concerns surrounding parking as they related to the updated proposal. The revised statistics were offered as a response to those concerns, indicating that adjustments had been made to the site plan to bring it into compliance or alignment with Commission expectations. Following the discussion, the Commission **approved** the item. ## South Hill Gardens [timestamp: 1:36:16] The Commission took up agenda item **DP 2008-85, South Hill Gardens**, a discussion item concerning a proposed development of six new townhouses. Key speakers on this item were **Jimmy Emmons** and **Roger Ladenburger**. The discussion centered on the development plan for the six-unit townhouse project, with a notable point of debate involving a condition modification related to a possible landscape variance. The specifics of the variance concerned adjustments to the landscaping requirements as part of the overall development conditions. The Commission reviewed the proposal and considered the implications of the requested condition modification before reaching a decision. The item was ultimately **approved**. ## Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 1 **Agenda Item: DP 2008-88** [timestamp: 1:43:32] The Commission took up a discussion of Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 1 (DP 2008-88), focusing on access points, the phasing of future development, and concerns related to traffic safety and connectivity. Key speakers in the discussion included **Tom Martin** and **Rory Kahly**, who addressed the Commission on the details of the plan. The debate centered on how access to the development would be configured and how the current section would relate to and connect with future phases of the broader Beaumont Farm project. Commissioners and speakers raised concerns about traffic safety implications of the proposed access points, as well as the adequacy of connectivity as the development is built out in phases over time. The item was ultimately **postponed**, with no final action taken at this meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-80: Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7 to August 14, 2008 - **Motion** — withdrawn (8-0): Withdraw PLAN 2008-9P: Hillenmeyer Property - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-44F: High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17 to August 14, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-77: Michael Gentry Property to August 14, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-79: Cardinal Hill Hospital to August 14, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-71P: Hampton Springs to August 14, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F: Thomas Communications, Inc., Unit 1-C and 1-D to August 14, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-76F: Bogie Estate, Lot 1 to August 14, 2008 - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-60: Blackford Town Center to September 11, 2008 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve consent agenda items except PLAN 2008-77F - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve PLAN 2008-77F: East Bridgeford Land & Dev. Co., Phase 1, Unit 2 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve PLAN 2008-78F, PLAN 2008-79F, PLAN 2008-80F: Mahan, Units 1-A, 1-B, 1-C - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Reapprove PLAN 2007-103F: Bluegrass Aspendale, Single-Family Area, Phase 3, Section 4 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve DP 2008-51: Palumbo Property, Garden Springs, Unit 1-S - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approve DP 2008-85: South Hill Gardens - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Postpone DP 2008-88: Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 1 to August 14, 2008 - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Call and release of bonds as presented --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon. I'd like to, uh, call to order the July 10th meeting of the Planning Commission, and at this is time, um, we do not have any minutes to approve so we will go into any requests for postponements or withdrawals at this time. We'll consider those at this time. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page eight of your agenda, Item E, DP2008-80, Chevy Chase Subdivision Unit 19, Lot 7, William T. Burke property, we're requesting a one-month postponement of that case. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Salih, what's the date on that? Uh- Your meeting in August is on the 14th. The 14th? Okay. Great. Thank you. Uh, we have a request for a one-month postponement for DP2008-80, Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7, William Burke property, located at 1136 Providence Lane, until the August 14th meeting. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of DP2008-80 till the August 14th meeting. I second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Howard Cruz, here representing Ball Homes this afternoon. I'd like to call your attention to Page 1, looks like Item 1, Preliminary Plan for the Hill and Meyer property. It's an amended preliminary plan. We would like to request that, uh, this plan be withdrawn from consideration at this time. It's my understanding that the previous, uh, previously approved subdivision plan remains in effect and, uh, we're moving forward based on the old plan. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Staff, do you have any comment at this time? Okay. We have a request to withdraw Plan 2008-9P, Hill and Meyer property, located on Lucille Drive and Sandersville Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for withdrawal? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move withdrawal of Plan, uh, 2008-9P. Indefinitely? Indefinitely. Withdraw or postpone? I believe it was withdraw. Withdraw. Withdraw. Okay. Indefinitely withdraw. Okay. We have a motion and a second to withdraw the plan. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppose, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Good afternoon. I'm Lori Sharp. I'm here on behalf of the applicant for item on Page 3C, Plan 2008-44F of Highmount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17, Amended. And I would like to request a postponement for one month. Okay. Thank you. Uh, we have a request for a one-month postponement to the August 14th meeting for Plan 2008-44F, Highmount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17, located at 2932 Candlelight Way. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of Plan 2008-44F. Uh, that's August the 14th. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in ple- in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppose, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you would turn to Page 7 in the agenda, Item C, uh, U- ... DP 2008-77 Michael Gentry property. We request a one-month postponement to August 14th hearing. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. We have a request for a one-month postponement of DP 2008-77, Michael Gentry property, located at 20, uh, excuse me, located at 3292 Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of DP 2008-77 to the August 14th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second to, uh, postpone. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, mem- members of the commission, Chris Howard with Carmen. On page seven, item D, DP 2008-79 Cardinal Hill Hospital, we request a one-month postponement. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Howard. Uh, we have a request for a one-month postponement for DP 2008-79 Cardinal Hill Hospital, located at 1826, 1832, and, and 2050 Versailles Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to postpone . Second that. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Uh, on page two, item B, this is plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs amendment, requests a one-month postponement to the August 14th hearing. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Um, we have a request for a one-month postponement for plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs, located at 4574 Harrodsburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move we postpone plan number 2008-71, Hampton Springs, until the August 14th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And the next two items on the page, under final subdivision plans, uh, they're both Thomas Communications Unit 1C and 1D plans 2008-24F and 25F, request a one-month postponement on both of these till the August 14th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement till the August 14th meeting for plan 2008-24F Thomas Communications Inc Unit 1C and plan 2008-25F Thomas Communications Inc Unit 1D, both located at 2236 Walnut Grove. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to the request for postponement for these two plans? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2008-24F and plan 2008-25F until the August 14th meeting. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And on page three, the bottom item D, plan 2008-76F Bogey Estate Lot 1, request a one-month postponement to the August 14th meeting. Thank you. We have a request for a one-month postponement for plan 2008-76F Bogey Estate, located at 5846 Old Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move, uh, the, uh, postponement to August 14th meeting for plan 2008-76F. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are there any additional postponements or withdrawals at this time? Okay. At this time we will- Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, Mr. Moore. That's quite all right. Once again, staff has received a communication on page six of your agenda at the bottom, item D, under development plans, DP 2008-60 Blackford Town Center. Staff had a conversation with Mr. Rob Sims concerning, as we reported last time, they are still working on this plan and it is in flux, to quote him, and he has asked for a two-month postponement. Can you give me that date for two months? September 11th. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. We have a request for a two-month postponement, uh, by the applicant via communication to staff for DP 2008-60 Blackford Town Center, located at 6600 Man O War Boulevard, until the September 11th, 2020 meeting. ... 08 meeting. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a two-month postponement for DP2008-60 to the September 11th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Any additional... Okay. All right. Okay, at this time, we will move into our land subdivision items, and first order of business we will take will be, uh, our consent agenda. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Sallee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. There are 10 items appearing on your consent agenda this afternoon. The first two items are final subdivision plans. The first appearing on page four, item E of your regular agenda. This is plan 2008-77F, the final record plat for East Bridge- Bridgeford Land and Development Company, also known as Kingston Hall, phase one, unit two. This is for property located at 2356 Newtown Pike. The second item appears on page five, item I of your agenda. This is plan 2008-86F, an amended final record plat for Lakeview Acres Unit 3, Tract 10, Lot 12, amended. Both of these are final record plats recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. A number of development plans also appear on your consent agenda, the first appearing on page eight, item G of your regular agenda, DP2008-86, Man O' War Development, Unit 2A, a portion of. This is a d- final development plan for property located at 1710 Pleasant Ridge Drive and 2046 Bryant Road. The next item is an amended final development plan on page nine, item H of your regular agenda, DP2008-87, Larkin Property Amended, for property at 2580 Spur Road. Another item appears, page nine, item J, an amended final development plan, DP2008-89, Townhouses of Lexington, Regency Point Amended. This is for property at 2553 Nicholasville Road. The next item on your consent agenda is the next item on your regular agenda, page nine, item K, DP2008-90, an amended final development plan for Angliana Subdivision and A. G. MacGregor Subdivision, also known as Angliana Student Housing. This is for property at 520, 534, 537, and 544 Angliana Avenue. The next item appears on page 10, item L of your agenda, DP2008-91, Bluegrass Business Park, Pemberton Farm, Lot 3A, amended, for property located at 2201 Jaggie Fox Way. The next item on your consent agenda is page 10, item M, an amended final development plan for Fayette Mall, DP2008-92. This is for property located at 3301, 3401, and 3555 Nicholasville Road. The next item is the next item on your regular agenda, page 10, item N, DP2008-93, Interstate Service Center, Unit 1, amended, for property at 1950 Stanton Way. Final item on your consent agenda appears on page two of that agenda. It appears on your regular agenda on page 11, item O, DP2002-65, Turfland Mall Amendment Number 23. This is for property located at 2033 through 2097 Harrodsburg Road, and this plan has been recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It may be appropriate at this time to consider requests from the commission, the audience, or from applicants to remove items from your consent agenda to allow discussion. Thank you, Mr. Sallee. I guess at this point, we'll start with the commission. Any items we would like to see, uh, removed for discussion? Yes, I'd like to see the first one of page four, item E. Okay. Are there any other requests from the commission? Um, I just had a quick question. Uh- Yes, Ms. Phillips. ... I'm noticing on the last, the last, uh, subdivision that we're asked to look at, Turfland Mall, I just took note that the original approval was in 2002, and just wondered if, um, there have been regulatory changes in the past six years that would, uh, if there were a lapse in approval, if this development plan would then have to comply with any kind of new changes that have happened in six years. It seems like a long time for a plan to just continue to get approved. I think the, uh, biggest regulatory change that may have taken place in that zone over the last six years would have been to the minimum required parking requirements in the B-6P zone. Those requirements have been relaxed over that time. So while there may be a change to those requirements, the development should better comply with those requirements. Uh, a year ahead of that, we did have some more substantial changes to B-6P relating to building offsets and our big box design guidelines, but that was after, pardon me, before this plan was approved. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sallee. Uh, is it okay to- Yeah. ... remain? Okay. Um, DP2002-65 will remain on the consent agenda. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to, uh, s- uh, have any of the items noted on the consent agenda discussed? Okay. Seeing none at this time, um, the Chair, uh, the Chair has to deco- disqualify himself, uh, for two items, um, DP 2008-87, Larkin Property and DP 2008-91. I just want to notify the disqualification for myself. So with that said, um, the Chair at this time will entertain, uh, a motion, uh, for acceptance of the consent agenda. Taking a walk. With, with the noted, uh, with the noted items removed for full hearing. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the, uh, consent, consent agenda, taking off item num- on page four, uh, item number I, the Lake, uh, View Acres. No, E. I'm sorry. E. Eh, excuse me, item number E. And I looked right at... uh, and with deleting that one from the consent agenda and approving the others. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda with removal of Plan 2008-77F, page four, item E for discussion. All those in favor of the consent agenda, please say Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, at this time, we'll, uh, we'll give the staff a moment, uh, to get set up for first, uh, first application. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page four. It is at the top of the page, item E, Plan 2008-77F, the East Bridgeford Land and Development Company, also known as Kingston Hall, Phase One. This is located at 2356 Newtown Pike. This is the plan they presented to us today and it's a record plat. So providing this acreage out of the remaining 70 acres. And I'll step over here to give you a better idea of where we're talking about and what's going on. Here's Interstate I-75, 64. Here's Newtown Pike. This is the problem here on this... Oh, my God. Oh, my God. I'm not so great. I can hear myself so well. There we go. There, that's better. Now I'm on the record. Thank you. Okay. Start over. Start over. Thank you. Again, here is the tract that they're proposing to subdivide. It's a 10-acre tract. There are 23 acres remaining. To give you a better idea of where this is located again, I-75 and 64. Here's Newtown Pike. This is Providence Parkway, which has been constructed and dedicated to this point. Here is Stanton Way. This is the area where we recently approved a development plan with the motel and the road that cuts through here and connects. And of course, Cracker Barrel and those things are out in there. So that's the area where we are. This is the currently approved plan. Now, I'm, I'm sure you all recall, we had a lot of discussion and work on a, on a pre, an amendment to this plan that showed lotting patterns and we had a lot of discussion about this area. They have since then withdrawn that plan, and we have this record plat before you today. And again, here's the area, here's the frontage with this record plat. This is, again, a rectangular-shaped piece of ground, 10 acres. This is the scenic resource area in the EMP, this is the boundary. It is in this area that they will have the ability to develop. And in this case, it is our understanding they wish to place a single-family home in this area. And, and that's the primary purpose of this plat, is to allow them to sell this piece of property to the individual who wishes to place a home there. Now, that individual is the gentleman who has the property in here with the large white house and the multiple structures, which was subject also to the previous development plan and some additions that has been before you as well. You can see the existing road that comes through here and comes here. There is also, not shown on this plan, but on a minor plat, an easement that continues on down to serve this lot. Now, that was done on a non-building plat to allow them to take down the property, and it was necessary to extend that easement through into here. And again, that's an easement that comes here. This plan was reviewed by the technical committee, and then by your subdivision committee as well. It was recommended for approval... With 12 standard conditions. Uh, and I say "standard," although there's a couple of resolved conditions I- I wish to bring to your attention. And starting with number 10, you can see, "Resolve the possible need for a final development plan to be approved by the Planning Commission." We, w- I'm gonna place a article of our ordinance up on the overhead for you. Thank you. Our expansion area zoning requirements require development plans on properties. That's a requirement, and that's why we raise this issue. Now, there is an exception, and that exception is Article 23-B2, or is that Three? Pardon me. And that relates to agricultural purposes, and for the placement of a single family home on ground, on land, on, on a property. And that is what they propose to do. And as you all are aware, staff is always hesitant to place development plan constrictions on a single family home. You know, it'd be a shame for someone to add a, a porch or a shed and have to come back before you. It's, it's just a very practical matter, as you are aware. And so, that's why we raise that issue. We have been working with legal, and we're confident now that this property does fall within this exception. So, that's why we have that resolve i- placed as a condition. We also have resolved the access easement. And I'm gonna return to your plan over here. Again, the big picture. This is existing. The key is the rest of this access easement, and as I mentioned before, the non-building plat, because this is extended to serve this area. And that was a requirement for that plat, for that plat to be legal and be recorded. Now, we believe it can be resolved, because with the construction and dedication of Providence, they can bring us in a, a plat, and, and the aspects of that, that plat is still under discussion, but we believe, staff does, that a plat can rectify that part of the easement by allowing frontage here and a connection here that would then serve this area. So, uh, we also are remaining with the option, 'cause it's resolved, this to be an access easement, and it could continue to serve if necessary. So, the discussion is still open to resolve it in the best way to allow utilization of this property, and to satisfy the requirement that this access easement serves here. And again, I would just point out that this is constructed and dedicated, so we do have a public street now to here, which was an important factor. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Um, Mr. Penn, you have a question? Yeah, Mr. Martin, uh, the 10-acre tract that's gonna have the built house on it, I'm going to assume that that's not the house that was approved to go on Providence. That's a different house? That is our understanding. It's our understanding a different house, but the applicant pro- c- could probably answer that- Okay. ... question better if that one's not- Okay, w- h- while I got you, let me ask you about this access easement on past the 10 acres. Are you telling me that if those lots should come in, they could have access to Newtown Pike on that access easement? Actually, that would always be an issue as well that we would talk about, but it does currently exist. We believe that that access to these tracts can be served because of the dedication- Right. ... of Providence through here. Right. But that, that is still an issue, because it's still an a- an a- an access to a development plan. We would like to resolve it, yes, sir- All right. ... and make sure that that question is resolved permanently. My other question is, the 200-foot setback, the scenic easement, is that measured now from the new road, or is that measured from the old road? Beth, Bill, maybe. Mr. Penn, that is a line that has been pretty much in the same location since your expansionary master plan was adopted in 1996. So, although the right of way line has changed, that boundary of where the scenic resource area has not. So, it's, it's probably more than 200 feet now from the road? Oh, absolutely. That line is closer to 1,000 feet than it is 200 feet. That, that's what I mean. I believe it's around 900 on average. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn, I might elaborate. I believe, and, and Bill would correct me, but that follows the ridge line, was the attempt to establish that scenic resource area. It, it's slightly different from the ridge line, but it's- Slightly. ... close to it. Okay. But the building site would definitely all be in the, in the scenic easement? Yes, sir. It should be behind that line. Okay, thank you, Mr. Penn. Mr. Gravens? About how much land is from the scenic easement to the back of the property? It is just 100 feet. It is, it is narrow. I mean, it is, as you can see, and this speaks volumes. It is a very small area. 100 feet by 452, almost 453 feet. It's a small buildable area, relatively speaking, but surely adequate for a single family home. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin? Miss Phillips? Um, do we have the septic tank approval from the Board of Health? Not yet, and it would have to be prior to certification of this plan. Okay. And I assume the drain field would be... Is the drain field allowed within that scenic resource area? I, I would think so. It's the, the scenic area addresses structures and that sort of thing. This would not be above ground, so I would think they could utilize that area if necessary. Mm-hmm. Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Petitioner? Uh, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Um, we're in agreement with Tom's, uh, statements. And, um, I guess what we would do is ask that number 10 be omitted then, since the development plan's not required, and request approval subject to the remaining, uh, 11 conditions. And I'll- Okay. ... try and answer any questions you have as well. Do you want ... Is it ... Um, I will say in working with planning staff, legal has, uh, preliminarily formed an opinion that there probably will not be a final development plan required. But I was just approached about that yesterday, and I think we wanted to leave it resolved, uh, just so that I could make sure that there wasn't going to be anything else that would influence that preliminary opinion. I, I feel fairly comfortable with it, but we wanted to leave it resolved for that reason. Okay, that's fine. Uh ... Okay, thank you. Any, um ... Does that, does that conclude ... Okay. Yeah, we're happy with it. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Uh, any questions for Mr. Kaley at this time? Well, I've got a concern. An- and my concern is that access easement that we're still talking about, and the reason for it is, is that right now if you came off I-75, you're gonna have at least three lights between there and this property. And if that access easement was used to develop the rest of the property behind that, you'd have the potential of four lights within less than a quarter of a mile. And, and it's ... You know, that's my concern, Rory, and that's, that's what I ... That's why I'm, I'm not concerned about putting the house there. I'm not concerned about the house having access to Newtown Pike. I'm concerned about the easement that we may or may not be granting for the rest of that property. Right, and this, this single-family use, um, will close that off. Uh, through the meetings with staff, we got to the point where, you know, um, Joel really wants to move the Neely residence over here. And so that's what we're trying to do, and we're trying to get this expedited as fast as we can. Um, the ... With Providence Place Parkway being dedicated, that lets us fix the access to the main track so much easier now that it's back there. And so there will be a minor plat that will, uh, do away with the easement, um, issues on this. Good thing. Okay. Do you need a transportation approval for an access onto Newtown Pike? Not for a house. No, there's already an existing one there. Existing? And I assume that the house will just use the same ... There, there's an existing one, and plus with the construction in Newtown, there was a approved point already, and that ... We did that with the, uh, uh, the development plan here on the right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Any other questions for Mr. Kaley? Thank you. Does anyone in the audience want to, uh, speak to this application? Okay. Staff, you have any other clarifications? Okay, thank you, sir. All right, uh, subdivision, Subdivision Committee recommended approval subject to the 12 conditions Plan 2008-77. Uh, at this time, uh, Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of Plan 2008-77F with the 12 conditions as noted. I second. We have a motion and a second, uh, for approval. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Mm-hmm. Welcome back. We missed you last Tues- uh, Thursday. I didn't realize I was so- So popular. ... noticeable. Or so visible. Let's put it back. Yeah. Good afternoon. If y'all would like to turn to page four, um, the bottom half of that page, and then at the top of the next page, on page five, you will find the Plans, uh, 2008-78F, Mayhan Unit 1A, 2008-79F Unit, Mayhan Unit 1B, and at the top of page five, Mayhan, um, 2008-80F Unit 1C. These are all final record plats to create single-family lots. This is located off of Man o' War at 2940 Man o' War Boulevard. Um, each plat, um, Unit 1A ... Unit 1A will be the first one coming off Man o' War, which will give us the entrance into the subdivision, creating five lots. The next, Unit 1B, which will connect up- Right here with unit 1A, going over to the property line, um, adjacent to Waterford subdivision, and then this one here will connect up right here, and then these two will connect up over into these two streets. On 1B, they're cre- creating 65 lots, and on 1C, they're creating 58 lots. If you look at the conditions... Um, the first 10 conditions are the same between the- the- all three plans. On unit 1A, they have, um, two, 11 and 12 that says discuss. These two can both be changed to resolve at the time we can work that out. The Subdivision Committee recommended refer to full commission. The reason, because there was some question about the compliance with Article 4-5B of the Land Sub Regulations. This is sh- um, a l- report that's supposed to be given to you all, giving you, um, information as to how far 30% of their infrastructure they've c- completed. And so this was to be brought to you all to see if the- the letter that you all received, I gave you a copy, which shows you this. If this is the information for you all to recommend this all to move forward. Okay, any questions? Thank you, Ms. Galt. Any- any questions for Ms. Galt at this time, Commission? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Petitioner. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Uh, we are in agreement with the conditions for all three plats and request approval. Um, I have Howard Cruz here with me, and we're gonna try to answer any questions you might have about the 30% letter. Uh, it- it is something that's newly being enforced upon us, and it's, um, it's new to us as well. And basically, um, I guess we're looking to you guys for guidance. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Are there any questions for Mr. Kaley at this time? Does everyone have the- the letter in front of them? Okay. Ms. Phillips, do you have a question? Um, I- I took a look at this, and, um, first off, thank you for providing this letter for us, and, um, I think it's important in light of the consent decree and, um, uh, some changes that we need to bring on board. Um, I hate for you guys to be the Guinea pig, but thanks for- thanks for bringing- Thanks for volunteering. Thanks for volunteering. Um- I didn't write this letter . I know you weren't. You look it. Um, the- the first paragraph that speaks to stormwater, I- I suppose, um, you- your stating that it's in compliance with the Stormwater Manual is all we really need at this point, and that, you know, if we had something stating that, um, you know, the- the basin sites had been approved and you're working towards engineering design standards, whatever you need to say is fine. Um, but my question was about number two, um, the sanitary sewer service. Um, all that you're telling us in this paragraph is that, uh, it's gonna flow towards the West Hickman treatment plant, but it doesn't speak to capacity of that system, uh, whether or not the pump system is adeq- uh, the pump station is adequate, whether there'll need to be an additional pump station, um, for that anticipated flow. What is that anticipated flow? And I know that, uh, Cheryl Taylor's people are working towards, uh, and Charlie Martin's people are working towards, uh, a computer model that will give us a better handle on what anticipated flow is. Um, but I think I'd like to see a little more information other than specifically what treatment plant would, uh, would service, um, the proposed development. So those are the kinds of things that I was hoping for. Um, and at 30%, um, probably a lot of those questions will have been asked. You may not have complete answers a- as of yet, but I'm hoping that those questions will have been asked and you'll at least be able to provide some information that addresses those concerns. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Um, any other comments with regards to the, um, 30% report? I know that one of the- one of the questions I- I think it came up in the Subdivision Committee meeting, and I think Mr. Gross kind of gave a quick overview of what was, uh, reviewed, I guess, as far as the status report, and I think he said Section 404 and those types of permits, if applicable, that type of information would be good to know as well. Um, I know he- he- he stated it in about two minutes a whole lot better than what this letter said, and we just didn't have it in writing. Yeah, I- I think at the 30% point we wouldn't have any of the permits in hand, but by the time we get to, uh, construction on site and, you know, we're- we're getting ready to file the plats, all the permits are in hand and have been turned into engineering. You know, follow- those are really good points. Um, but it would be nice to know at the 30% timeframe if a- if a water quality certification, uh, would be required, if, uh, you know, there's a 404 permit application on file or flagging being done or whatever, to try to comply with, uh, any kind of, uh, stormwater compliance at this state. Okay. Okay. Any other- any other comments? Mr. Penn? Yeah. The only one I would make, and- and Howard, I guess I'm making it just because I don't know, um, it's a question of... I've been told ever since I been on here that, you know, once we get in the field, it becomes three-dimensional instead of two-dimensional. And so if we get into the situation where we are with the 30% report, if we run into something that's three-dimensional, that we're used to looking at two-dimensional- ... I think it's an opportunity for you to come back and tell us that, you know, we've got a problem, we need to do it this way or that way. I would hope that would be part of the ongoing dialogue that we'd run into. Uh, just one quick comment. Uh, this is, this is all new to me. Sure. So, I mean, and I appreciate you working with us on this. A lot of these issues that we are discussing here today are... it's my job to address before we get into the project. Uh, so I assure you, we, we know there's capacity. We know if a pump station has to be upsized or improved. Uh, we know what permits we have to get now. We know. Uh, so those, those things are easily addressed, even at the preliminary plan stage. Okay, well that, that's even better. So we definitely plan on, on knowing as much of that as we can because that prevents us from being exposed when we don't want to be. So I, I mean I'm happy to provide that information. I can do it earlier, it's just I guess we all got caught with our pants down- Sure. ... so to speak. Well- We just weren't aware of the, uh, requirements. I mean, if we can do it at the preliminary stage, th- th- no, no so much the better because it makes it easier for us, but if we get in a situation, let's just, let's just come back and say, "We've got a problem. Here's how we're gonna try to fix it." Absolutely. Th- you know, and we... I guess from my perspective, those are engineering issues- Sure. ... that we work out with the engineering folks. Uh, if, if you feel it's my responsibility to report that to you, I'll be happy to do that. Uh, I guess a lot of times we assume that the right hand and the left hand talk when they don't, uh, but I'll be happy to provide this information in the future. That's, that's what we're, that's what we're looking for. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Uh, Mr. Kaley, you have anything additional you'd like to add? No, nothing further. Okay. Any other, uh, questions from the commission for petitioner? I see some folks in the audience that may be other cases. Does anyone in the audience would like to speak to this, these plans? Okay, seeing none. Um, at this time, we'll... The staff, whether staff has anything else they'd like to add. Are we good? Okay- No, sir. ... we're good. Okay. At this time, uh, we'll close this portion of the hearing. Um, you have, uh... This was referred by the subdivision committee, I think, regarding the, um, status of, of the report and our letter. You've heard, um, petitioner offer, um, explanation of their report and I think commission members have also given some guidance from this side as to what those requirements are to be in accordance with the regulations. Um, should the plans be approved, um, Unit 1A, Unit 1B, and Unit 1C, there are 12 conditions on 1A, 10 on 1B, and 10 conditions on 1C. Um, so with that, um, I will ask the commission if they have any further comment or motion. Mr. Chairman, I would move that, uh, we move to for, uh, approval of item plan number 2008-78F, Unit 1A, Unit 1B, and Unit 1C, and commenting also that we... the only reason we sent this for, to the commission with, for the, with the referral was because we needed the explanation of the letter, so we're moving on. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of, um, Plan 2008-78F, Mayhan Unit 1A, Plan 2008-79F Mayhan Unit 1B, and 2008-80F Mayhan Unit 1C, all located at 2940 Man O' War. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. That's real progress. Mm-hmm. Okay. If we could ask for some clarification on that last motion. There was, uh, I believe a request, um, for Unit 1A to change the 11 and 12 conditions to resolve rather than discuss. Wh- um, I'm assuming that was part of the motion? That is correct, yes. We just wanted that- Thank you. ... in the minutes. Thank you. Should be changed to resolve, condition 11 and 12. I wrote that right down there. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Next item on your agenda is on page five, Item J, Plan 2008-28F, Lake View Island, Unit 3, The Landings. This item has been brought back to you as a continued discussion item. The purpose of the continuing discussion is a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations. The- Area in question is located at the very end of Lake Park Road. Lake Park Road runs off of Richmond Road across from Fayette Mall by James Motors and runs back. You all have recently seen an extended stay motel on that area, and you've recently seen this plan as well, with the development plan for the condominiums and this area whe- that was amended on the development plan for seven townhomes and associated parking. This record plat was then brought back to you and subsequently approved by you to create this lot where those seven townhouses will be. At the, uh, time that you approved this plat, you granted a waiver. That was a waiver of the street standards, 6-8 of your land subdivision regulations, where they did not have to build a cul-de-sac to terminate this street. And that was due to the fact that it ends in a large parking lot. There's a knuckle on the street, and you may recall that we determined that public safety was adequately protected by the current circumstances. So again, that's where we are, and that's what you had done previously. Now, this request is asking for a waiver of substantial completion, which is a certificate that is Article 4-71, and it's attached to your report. And that is a certificate that's provided, a certification by engineering that the public improvements have been installed and can be utilized in performance with their purpose. The other waiver request is Article 6-6B, which is also attached to your report. That is the public sewer requirement within the subdivision regulations. And it- it states, as you can see, that a- that, "Every subdivision shall be provided with a public sanitary sewage disposal system." Now, the applicant has provided, and it is in the report, a justification of hardship for the waiver request. Staff has reviewed this and has pointed out in the report that Article 1-5 of the subdivision regulations, 1-5, 1-5A, specifically exceptional hardship, states that these waivers must be granted on an exceptional, unique, topographic or other natural or man-made feature. Secondly, the design innovation, which is also cited by the applicant, is again, relates to a design feature, an innovative design feature. And so for those reasons, you can turn to the second page of your report, and you can see that staff has in fact recommended disapproval of the waiver based on the fact that they have not met the requirements of Article 1-5A or Article 1-5B of the subdivision regulations. We further went on to point out that although the applicant is asking for this waiver due to a hardship, and they are offering to bond the construction, that should, for some reason, it become necessary for the government to call that bond and construct the sewer, that would have a tremendously, uh, could have a negative impact on public safety, uh, with the providing that service, particularly across private property. So these are issues that we have with this particular request, uh, for this particular waiver. If you have any questions, I'd like, uh, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin from the commission? Okay. Thank you, sir. Petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Gary Rowland, who's with me here today, and Bill Massey, his partner, who will be purchasing this lot. And this is a, um, uh, something we've encov- uncovered, an in- infill issue. It's a problem because part of the, most of this complex was built a number of years ago. We're adding units now on an existing lot, and we've sort of encountered a seam in the ordinance, which we're having a problem with. We've talked a number of people in government. I don't think they have a particular problem with what we want to do in concept. It's just whether we're technically eligible for a, a waiver of the land subdivision regulations. I think we are, but we also have found a way to do this without a waiver, which I'll discuss with you in a minute. Um, but I want to tell you what we're doing here. You all, and I wasn't here last time, you all approved the, uh, subdivision plat earlier, which created this line right here. Right now, this is the, this- this lot line does not exist. This is all part of the Lakes Edge apartment complex, which is now a condominium development. I did the condominium conversion on this in which the owners converted the apartment complex into condominiums. There's 102, and when we did the condominium documents, we said we're going to add a few more units to this on the space they had. So it was clear to everybody coming into this that that would be the case. So it's a condominium association right now, and, um, the, um, there have been extensive, uh, renovations out there. I don't know if you've been out there to see it, but it- it looks totally different than it did a year ago. They've done a lot of work, interior and exterior, to upgrade this area out there, and it's- it's gone real well. Their- those units are selling real well. The... Problem came up when, when, uh, a, a development plan was amended to add seven units in this area right here, and you all approved that development plan. So, theoretically, they could go out and get their building permit tomorrow, put this on a private sewer lateral, just as all the other six buildings are on private sewer laterals, going to the public sewer, which is located right here in a sewer easement right, like, off the property there. Um, problem has been in obtaining the construction financing that people who are loaning the construction money to build the units want to have a separate lot to put a mortgage on to s- supply the construction loan. So Gary, when he's applied for his loan, the loan officer said, "Well, we want to have a separate lot to have something to put a mortgage on, 'cause you don't have any building built right now. Right now, it's vacant. We want a mortgage on the land." So, came back to you to get the plat approved. You all approved it. And the, um, he has to get the plat recorded before he can get his loan. He has to get his loan before he can build the sewer. Now, the issue has come up, since this is a separate lot, the, I think, um, part of the government has taken the interpretation that a private lateral from this building cannot cross another lot to get to the public sewer. We're gonna have to have a... Our lateral's gonna be going right about where my pen is. You can see we're crossing our other lot to get to the existing sewer. Now, all six other buildings are on private laterals too, just like my house is on a private lateral. It's a lateral from my house to the line in the street, just, just like these buildings are. Same as everything else is. So, we've got a chicken or the egg issue. They have to get the financing to build. They have to get the financing to build the sewer, but under the regulations, the sewer has to be built before the plat can be recorded. So, we can't rec-, we can't get the financing to build the sewer. We can't record the plat, 'cause the sewer's not built. So, that's where we found ourselves on this, this particular situation. The, uh, um... If I can put up on the board the, uh... Let me put up this one for- for . Use an different one, yeah. This is section 66B of the subdivision regulations, which the staff has indicated we need a variance of, or waiver of, excuse me, which I don't see that in there. If you read that, this was, this was a 1960s ordinance back when people had private sanitary sewer treatment plants, and the city was trying to get rid of private sanitary sewer treatment plants. It says in there, "Except where septic tanks are permitted, every subdivision shall be provided with a public sanitary sewers dis- disposal system. However, the commission may approve subdivisions util- utilizing a privately owned system if the treatment plan is in existence at the time of adoption of these subdivision regulations," et cetera, et cetera. So, if you were building a subdivision, you had to make sure it was connected to the city's system eventually, not to a private sanitary sewerage treatment plant. Now, I don't see anywhere in there where it says that your lateral, to connect you to the public sanitary sewer system, can't cross another person's property if you got an easement to do it. The next section down, they do provide for sanitary sewer easements on there. So, I guess I initially questioned the need for us to get a waiver to do what we're doing. I understand that that is interpreted to say you gotta have a public sewer that you don't have to cross another lot to get to, but that's... Doesn't say that at all in that ordinance up there. Um, the, we do have a way of doing this without a waiver. Gary, if you could put that up on the overhead. Just by re-c- well, you put it up here, yeah. By reconfiguring the lot, we can, uh, provide a... I'll wait til Gary's not blocking your view there to tell you what I'm telling you here. This is, again, the same lot here that we have here, but we've just extended down the line and that gives us enough room to put our sanitary sewer lateral in our lot. And I think we, we just, we just brought this to the staff this morning, and so they didn't, we didn't give them time to review it, to be honest about it, and they were reluctant to approve that without coming to you and letting you look at it and sort of give your blessing to it. But, um, it's the, it's a lot which would work. And bearing in mind, once these are built, the construction loan will go away. They'll get permanent financing on the condominium units, and this lot will be conveyed back to the owner's association, and this lot line is gonna disappear. We're gonna do a consolidation plat once these are built, because the, we set up the condominium association so that all units have to belong to the condominium association, and the association will eventually end up owning all the common open space, so we have to convey this back to the condominium association, and our lot line is gonna disappear. So, the, the easy way to solve it is for us to withdraw our request for the waiver before you and get this recorded. I think, as I said, the staff was reluctant to do it, 'cause we didn't, we didn't give them enough time. That's our fault. We didn't give them enough time, but, and I think there's some hesitation to, to do that without you looking at the shape of the lot, because it's a little differently shaped than a lot of lots you, you see here. But I think it is the... ... way to solve this situation, and I think it does nothing to change the physical condition on the ground, because simply, we'd do a private lateral for this, just as we have for all buildings, and just as every apartment and condominium building does right now, and, uh, allow us to do that, and then we'll... Our lot line will disappear and we'll do it. So, that is my proposal to you. I do have some other discussion about topographic reasons to do this, if we have to get into this and ask for a waiver, but I don't really think we need to ask for a waiver, and I don't wanna waste your, your all time going through that. But if you want to hear it, I'd be happy to tell you about that too. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Uh, do we have any questions? Commission members? Questions for Mr. Murphy? Okay. Um, I guess, staff, do you... I'm sorry, Mr. Rowland? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to- Just a few seconds. Yes, sir. Uh, Mr. Chairman? I'm Gary Rowland, um, and I'd just like to say that we're just wanting to run a private sewer lateral the way that all other buildings are. We've spoken with engineering, we've spoken with sanitary sewers. No one has a technical reason that I've heard of or that's, that anyone's told me on why this is a bad idea to do this. It's just one of these little chicken and egg things, and making sure that we fit the requirements of the ordinance, which we want to do. So anyway, I just would like for you to know that we're not trying to get out of anything. We're not... We're just trying to f- find a way to move this project forward the way that, um, the way that it needs to. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rowland. Staff, do you have anything that- Yeah, I would like just to add some clarification. And again, uh, I will elaborate slightly. I don't like to get up and read a report to you all. I know you all can read it, but I would point out that the request... I- if there's not a waiver of Article 6-6 by interpretation, that's one thing, but as we understand it, because of the financial situation, they do need a waiver of substantial completion, because engineering will not sign the plat until the line's built, but they can't build the line until they get their financing. Well, if they can't get the plat signed, it can't get recorded, he can't get his financing. That's the rock and the hard place that they find themselves between. So, I would want to clarify that even if you agreed with their interpretation of 6-6B, I do believe, staff believes, they still need a waiver of 4-7D1, which is substantial completion. And again, I wanted just to elaborate, and I would point out further... And again, I don't like... As you all know, I, I don't want to read these to you 'cause I know you can read 'em, but I would point out, under the disapproval, 'cause perhaps I should have done this to emphasize... We're, we're very... Staff is very concerned about justifying a waiver on the grounds of a financial hardship, when it, they're absolutely required to be granted for topographic, manmade, natural features, design features. And i- it, this is a small project, granted, 150, 200 feet of line, but someone can argue financial hardship with thousands of feet of line. And so, that, we have a concern in that regard. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Well, let me... If I may- Sure. ... let me discuss 4-7D. I'll put that up on the screen here. That's the one that is... If you look at the... It, it goes over two pages, so bottom, the start of it, 4-7D, certification by Irvin County engineer. "Upon approval or conditional approval of final record plan by..." The Planning Commission, "and determination of substantial completion," here's the key word, "of the public improvements by the project engineer, the final record plan can be submitted to be the Urban County engineer for certification." This is the part that says, "Before you record a final plat, the public sewer has to be built or certified by the Urban county engineer before it can be recorded." So when you do a big subdivision, the sewer lines have gotta be in the street before you can record the plat. Well, that just goes to public improvements, and again, if we do a private lateral line, which I contend we can do anyway, even under this old configuration, we do-... That, that is not a section that applies. What, what applies is that, when he gets his building permit for the building, he has to go in and get a sewer tap-on permit from the Division of Engineering to, uh, as well, and he cannot start his building until he's got a sewer tap-on and all that sort of thing is taken care of. So, um, but nonetheless, um, we were... When we were gonna argue for a waiver of these two sections before you, we felt that we could post a bond for the amount of the public sewer, and we were, we were... What, what we were gonna offer was to post a bond for the full amount of the public sewer, that he'd go ahead and be able to record the plat and then build it, and in case it wasn't done prop- c- consolidate them back, and then drop it, and the bond would go away with the protection that if he never did that, there would be money there to build a full public sewer, which I guess would replace his pub- private lateral, which he'd built at the same time, which, again, we think is an overly cumbersome procedure. As far as physical reasons for the waiver, we felt that doing a priv- private lateral might allow it to be... Would allow it to be, uh, connected at a higher elevation than a public sewer would be, just because of the requirements for public versus private. Where we're tying in is about 100 feet from the reservoir, and we felt that by tying it at a higher location with a private sewer, it would result in a safer overall situation, because we are so close to the public reservoir. So there was a physical topographic reason for us asking for the, the waiver of this, because we, by doing private, we... There's a good possibility we'd be able to tie in at a higher elevation, close to the reservoir over there. But again, I don't think we need that, because if we go with this... ... section right here. We can build a p- a private lateral to the, to the public line, connect directly in there, um, as long as... And, and I think the staff wanted to see, you to see the shape of the lot, just to make sure you were comfortable with the shape of the lot. So, um, I think that's... I think you all had an issue with the shape of the lot if we weren't going to get a waiver, is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Yep. Yep. Staff, uh, again, we did see, we saw this at about 12:30, and, and we did have some concerns with the shape of the lot. The, the sub-regs, of course, discourage strongly odd-shaped lots. Uh, I would agree with the applicant that a shape of a lot that hopefully would go away someday is much preferable to stomping , you know, around in waivers and those kinds of problems and with the implications of waivers, certainly. So, although that is not the shape of a lot we would normally encourage whatsoever, that is certainly a reasonable solution to, to, uh, not having to ask you all to approve waivers, certainly. So, Mr. Martin. I think Mr. Penn asked a question, but, uh... Yeah, are we better to go that route, Mr. Martin, or are we better to give you two weeks to work this out? I, uh, I, I think we'd like to have some time to work it out and look at it, certainly, always. Well, the re- reason I'm saying this is that there's two things that concern me about this. Is, you, you wanna go- Sure. Yes. Uh-huh. One of it is, is that it's, it's hard for us to, to try to work things out in order to create financing opportunities for, for an applicant. That's, that's really not what we're here for. The other thing is, is that the waiver thing really dis- disturbs me, for, for a lot of reasons. If the time would help you work that out to where it was not as much of a precedent-setting thing, as this might be, then I think it might be prudent to give you the two weeks. If you think you can do it without that, and this is an, is a, is a workable solution, then I'm ready to entertain it. I'm not ready to entertain a waiver at this time. No, we, we would prefer time to work it out, yes, sir. We think that, uh, certainly progress could be made, and it would give everybody a chance to sit down and, and look at it, and, and work, uh, on making this work the way it, it needs to work. 'Cause as you pointed out, we would agree, we, we're worried about waivers, and we don't, you know, approve them or encourage them lightly, so. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Holmes, do you have a question? Yeah, I was just gonna add, I guess I'm a little uncomfortable trying to work it out here in, in, in a meeting this way. And if you and the applicant could sit down and bring it back in the time needed, I'd feel more comfortable having the staff have time to review it and, and address it, 'cause, uh, the waiver does bother me somewhat. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right, thank you, Mr. Martin. Um, I guess at this time, um, uh, we'll close this portion of the hearing. Uh, I had a question for legal. Do we need to... The petitioner wanted to withdraw this waiver. Do we need to take action on the withdrawal of this waiver in front of us? Is that... Or is that... You wanna go back? I'd prefer, if we're gonna postpone it two weeks, which if, if that's what you all wanna do, we're agreeable to that. I'd just prefer to leave it the way it is. Who knows what we'll... Hopefully we won't be bringing much of anything, except 30 seconds to you in two weeks, but we'd like to keep it all on the table until that time. Okay, thank you. All right. Okay, at this time, uh, uh, we've closed this portion. Any other discussion, comments from the commission? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of Plan 2008-28F, uh, for two weeks and I don't have the date. July 24th. July the 24th, um, meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone for two weeks Plan 2008-28F. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Can we take a five-minute break? Uh, yes. We'll, uh, we'll take about a five, 10-minute break, and we'll re- resume. Thank you. Mr. Emmons. Mr. Chairman. I guess, you don't have a chair to raise out there, do you? You're standing. I am standing. Oh, oh, oh. Now that, I didn't mean, that was not... Actually, I, I didn't even know what the, I don't even know what the comment was about, so. Yeah. As well, just as well. I, I am, I am happy to, uh, uh, present to you our, our next item on our agenda. It's located at the top of page six. It's item K, Plan 2007-103F. This is for the Bluegrass Aspendell single family area. This is for phase three, section four. Uh, the property is located, uh, along East 6th Street and Breckenridge Street. And if I can use, uh, my exhibits, I can explain this one a little bit better. Uh, East 6th Street, uh, as we have over here, a part of the overall Bluegrass Aspendell final development plan, this is actually just in the exhibit. The plat before you today is the one that's colored up here in the, uh, summery pastel colors. The, uh, the reason, the East 6th Street and Breckenridge Street, Breckenridge Street is located here, 6th Street along here. That was the overall addressing for the overall Bluegrass Aspendell. The area that we're looking at in the final record plat that's before you today is actually located, uh, in the area between 5th Street and 4th Street, just east of Race Street. It's just, uh, immediately south of the new school site, and it is part of the single family area of the Bluegrass Aspendell redevelopment project where we have most of the, uh, multifamily, uh, located more off of the 6th Street area. This is a, uh, plan that was originally approved about a ye- a little over a year ago. Uh, the Planning Commission originally approved this final record plat, along with several other final record plats in this area on June 14th, 2007. Uh, and as you can see on your agenda, it was approved with seven conditions. Then that approval has expired, and the applicant is coming back and simply asking for a reapproval. Uh, since that time, they have, they are asking to, uh, the reason why it has four different colors on here, they've submi- they broke up this one plat into four sections. Those, uh, those record plats are in our office, along with the, uh, the other record plats for the area. We're trying to get them all recorded at once. The other ones came back to you in October of la- of 2007, and those are still valid plats, because they had to come back. This one, however, didn't have any changes, and, and so it didn't have to come back in October, and, and it is just barely expired. As you can imagine, uh, this redevelopment project, like, uh, as you've heard oftentimes before, is very difficult. We've been working through lots of conditions, and we are down to the, uh, the, the little details on the plats now, and we do expect, should you reapprove this plat, uh, that we expect this and the other final record plats for this overall area could, could be recorded as early as tomorrow. Um, so... The, the applicant is asking for a reapproval of this plan. This has 55 single family lots on it. The, this portion of the property is zoned R3. Uh, these single family lots range in the, uh, anywhere from 40-foot lots to 60-foot lots. Actually, most of them are in the 60-foot to 50-foot lot range for this particular area. Uh, if you have any questions for me or the applicant, a representative for the applicant is here, um, and other than that, we do re- uh, request reapproval of this plan, subject to the previous seven conditions. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Are there any questions for Mr. Emmons? Okay. Jimmy, I wanna ask you just one question. Th- that's 55 single family lots, is that what the yellow represents? Yes. Uh, th- this plat ha- was, was originally approved for 55 lots, and that's, that's what they're trying to record. Okay. Single family lots. Well, if y'all do... Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you, sir. Is petitioner present? I'm Katie Beard with Sherman, Carter Barnhardt, and, um, we are in agreement with all of the previously, um, defined conditions, and just ask for your reapproval today. Okay. Thank you, Miss Beard. Any questions? Commissioner? Okay. Uh, Mr. Ravens? Yeah. Uh, is it, uh, one contractor building these houses? I'm not sure. Sorry, I don't know the answer to that yet. Okay. Having, having worked with them before, it's our understanding that out, out of these single family lots, uh, in the whole single family area, there are several developers that are developing the lots. Uh, I do not know the developer breakdown on any of the single family lots, but it, we have been told before that it is multiple builders. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Emmons, Miss Beard. Any other questions? Okay. All right. We'll, uh, close this portion of the hearing, and, uh, I guess entertain a motion from the commission. Mr. Chairman, I move for reapproval of Plan 2007-103F with the previous seven conditions. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve. Uh, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Taylor. Hello. Good afternoon. The, uh, next item on your agenda appears on page six. This is, uh, DP 2008-51 Palombo Properties, Garden Springs Unit 1S. This is an amended final development plan. This is for property located at the intersection of Lane Allen and Garden Springs Drive, Turfland Mall to the rear. This is a Big Lots gas station, um, Chinese restaurant outlot here, and then smaller shops other places. The purpose of this amendment is to add a car wash here for, uh, 768 square feet of additional buildable area, as well as the stalls for the extra par- for the parking of the cars. The subdivision committee recommended postponement of this plan at the last time it was reviewed, uh, subject to 17 conditions. Uh, the engineer for this development plan has submitted revised site statistics, uh, that alleviate the concerns over whether or not the parking can be met on the site. Uh, it... that addresses condition number 17. We do believe that parking can meet now. Uh, regarding condition number 15, uh, the... they, they have been to the board of adjustment already, and that conditional use permit was granted, uh, which is why you have revised conditions on the pink sheet, uh, addressing conditions 15 and 17. Uh, I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Um, any questions for Mr. Taylor? Thank you very much. Petitioner? I'm Gary Roland with Foster Roland. Just like to say that we're in agreement with the staff, and, um, uh, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Roland. Any questions for Mr. Roland at this time? Uh, you have before you the revised staff recommendation on the pink sheet for DP 2008-81. So, at this time, we'll close this portion of the hearing, um, and chair will entertain a motion from the commission. Mr. Chairman, I move... Mr. Chairman, I move for approval, or the r- or r- of the- on the pink sheet of the revised project on DP 2008-51 Palombo Properties, Garden Springs Unit 1S. With the 17 conditions? Well, with the 17 d- conditions. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve DP 2008-51 on the pink sheet, uh, subject to the 17 conditions. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Emmons. Yes, sir. Our next item on our agenda will be located in about the middle of page eight. It's DP 2008-85, a development plan for South Hill Gardens. This is a final development plan, uh, for several properties that are located in the 400 blocks of South Mill Street and the 400 block of Lawrence Street. If we can have a few pictures, uh, the first is just a pictometry picture of the overall area. The properties take up most of a block, uh, between South Mill Street and Lawrence Street. There are actually several properties that are encompassed by this final development plan. This is the first final development plan for the subject property. It is very similar to the preliminary development plan that you saw with the zone change request. Uh, the property is located just south of Maxwell Street, and it's in between Upper Street and Broadway. It's part of the historic South Hill neighborhood. Uh, a couple of landmarks that you will probably recognize, along West Maxwell Street, this is the Dudley's Restaurant, right adjacent to the property, and we'll, we'll talk about it today as the, as a parking lot, uh, that you probably recognize 'cause it's got the brick wall and some plantings along there, that essentially serves as parking for Dudley Square. That is e- immediately adjacent to the area that, that we'll be discussing. The existing property, if we can switch to the, a little closer view. Uh, there are exist- there are five, uh, I'm sorry, six existing dwelling units on the property that are, we've got two duplexes and two single family homes that are in very close proximity to each other. The development plan d- does depict all of the existing homes that are located along South Mill Street, the six homes, and also, uh, is requesting approval for six new townhouses that will be in the area along Lawrence Street, creating a, uh, street presence along Lawrence Street. The, uh, subdivision committee did review, uh, this plan and recommended approval of it, uh, subject to eight conditions. It could have possibly been on the c- on the consenting, on the consent agenda, but there is one condition that, uh, the applicant and the staff concur, uh, could use just a slight modification. Uh, if you can see, our normal conditions, uh, conditions, uh, one through six are just, uh, sign-off conditions. Condition number seven, uh, would be provided that the Board of Adjustment grants the requested variance. Uh, we think that it would be wise to add the words "if necessary" on this one. And that variance would be, uh, that's- that's being talked about is it would be a possible landscaping variance between the B-1 of the existing parking lot on Dudleys and the, and the adjacent property. The reason why we believe that we feel that it's, would be important to say "if necessary," as you can see in this photograph, there is an existing brick wall along there. Anytime that you have zone-to-zone screening that's required, there's three possibilities. Either the, either the existing landscape will meet or exceed our requirements, the applicant can provide the landscaping if it doesn't, or they could request a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Uh, and so we would like to add the two little words "if necessary" so that if options one or two, uh, actually suffice, then they will not be required to go to the Board of Adjustment to ask for a landscape variance. Quite frankly, there- there just hasn't been a determination yet whether the existing landscaping along the parking lot will suffice to meet our minimum regulations. And with that said, um, if, uh, adding the two words "if necessary," we feel that this plan is approvable and, uh, the planning staff would, uh, recommend approval subject to the eight conditions as modified. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to. Also, Mr. Ladenberger is here representing the applicants in this plan. I did also forget to mention, this property is zoned R-1T. It was rezoned about a year ago, uh, maybe two years ago. It is also in a historic zone and this property has been in front of the Board of Architectural Review, at least for a conceptual review of the six new townhouses. I'm- I'm just not sure today whether they've gotten a final approval or not, but I do know that they've been in front of the board for at least a conceptual review of those townhouses. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Any, uh, any questions for Mr. Evans at this time? Thank you. Mr. Ladenburger? Mr. Chairman, I'm Roger Ladenburger. We're in agreement with the conditions and request approval with the, uh, added "if necessary." Thank you, Mr. Ladenburger. I commend your patience for two words. Two words, important two words. I think you've been here since 2:00 or 1:00, 1:30, but, uh, anyway, um, I don't see anyone in the audience at this point, but at this time, uh, any questions for Mr. Ladenburger? Rory sat down there. Oh, I'm sorry. Rory is out there, isn't he? Yeah. She did. Okay. Uh, at this time, uh, I'll, uh, entertain a motion from the, uh, commission. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP2008-85 with the eight conditions, adding to number seven, uh, the words "if necessary." Second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. ... kick him out, yeah. Yep. Mr.- Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page nine of your agenda is the next item. It is item I, DP2008-88, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 1. And this is a final development plan. This, this development plan depicts the proposed development on an area in the interior of the Beaumont Circle. And here you can see the circle, Monarch Street, Midnight Street, Wall Street here, and if we step over here, again, this is this area right in here. You most recently saw a zone change where you switch some P-1 and B-3. ... over into this area where they proposed some motels and a restaurant. Here's the Liquor Barn, Kroger's, and here's the YW or YMCA in this area. So, um, New Circle Road, so we're in Beaumont Center. This development plan is proposing a 19,000 square foot single story building with 95 associated parking spaces. This is phase two parking. This would be a phase one proposal, uh, for construction. They are asking for three access points, here on Beaumont Circle into this parking area, directly across from Wall Street, this one into this proposed first phase parking on Monarch Street. There is also a line to cross from here, an entrance into a parking lot, and then Midnight Pass. Now, there is nothing currently planned for that area, but again, you can see the proposed plan, and it is fairly straightforward in that regard. And again, here's the big picture that we wanted to give you with the pattern and with the access points. As you can see from your agenda, that the plan was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, and it referred to the full commission. And the conditions you can see are standard, with the exception of 10 and 11, and that's the reason it's been referred to today, that we have two, two items that we wish to discuss. And that, again, is the access to Beaumont, as well as the phasing of the future development, which we believe are connected. And I'm going to step over. I want to, a- again, show you the big picture, and this we think illustrates our concern. Here is Monarch Street to the north there on the development with an access point, which again, aligns up across here. Here's the circle. Here's their access point here. This access point right here is indicated by this red arrow. It's lined up here. And again, this access point on Midnight here, there's nothing yet proposed or developed on that side. Now, staff's concern on this is Beaumont Center Parkway is a collector street, and it carries a lot of traffic, got a very wide right-of-way. Traffic moves fairly quickly through the area. The development in the interior of the circle has done what we believe is a, a good job of breaking up through traffic, and that was their purpose, and staff thought that was a good idea as well, so that you weren't getting a lot of cut-through and fast movements through the interior, you know, for people trying to work their way across the development. So again, the circle, emphasis is on through traffic, traffic b- using the circle. Well, we also have bike lanes, which, uh, a- as you know, we're encouraging alternative modes, and we have bike lanes approved. A lot of traffic, we have walkers. So we're concerned that what we're doing here is creating a access point where we could have accidents and problems that we don't need. Now, again, I want to... They've lined it up across from an existing entrance. It meets our standards. It actually, the spacing for a collector, it meets. But we would only, again, point out, if you see the systems, and, uh, my tech people did this in yellow for me instead of black so you could see the road system. What, what has happened in this area is that the connections and the access points are always connected to another system. There's other, there's other opportunities for people within this system. It's true here. Here we have this system. It's true here with this system. They're even lined up here, but again, we've got this private system. We have this private system here. When you step over here to the townhouse, which is under construction, and you see this internal system, they have access here. They've lined up here. We're lined up here. We even have an internal system, a secondary system, along Veranda Place for these townhouses as well. And there's been a consistent development here of these connections, and we think this adds to the function and the safety of the system. Uh, the Y, granted, has an entrance. It's right here across from Beaumont Park. It is a parking lot. There's two conditions we think are special here. This is a public use, semi-public use building, lot of activity, lot of use, and it's bound, the site's bound topographically to the rear. It would have been difficult to have some sort of secondary system to connect that to. But once again, you can just see, we feel like there are good connections there, and we just don't believe this is necessary. We believe this is the type of conflict potentially here. We would, staff would, would consider it a, a point if... Again, if you follow the example that I pointed out to you, with these connections, these systems that are connected, there always seems to be a secondary connection in the system. If this area, and this is where the s- the phase, the phasing comes in, i- if we could see this as part of a system that would serve this development and connect it to the rest of the development, I think we would, we'd have a higher level of comfort with it. And again, I would only point out it's, it's not a matter of it not meeting the technical design standards in our regs. It's just, the staff wanted to bring this to you because of our concern. If this was absolutely necessary, we think alternatives are available. There's, uh, over five... there's approximately five acres in this site. Uh, there's a lot of flexibility. They control the entire site. Uh, we think there's some flexibility to design this in such a way that perhaps a system would be possible. Certainly, the buildings could be reoriented and the parking reoriented. So that was, that was a concern today that we wanted to present with you. Uh, we have talked it over with our fellow staff members. There is a consensus among staff that, um, this isn't the best of access points. Uh, no one is gonna tell you that it's the worst possible scenario either. We wouldn't want to give you that impression. Again, our concern is, though, that it can be better done, that it's just not necessary to the overall safety of pedestrians and traffic and the development of this area. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? I did have one. Can you walk through the townhouses just one more time? I guess, on the access points, you, you talked about access points- Yes, sir. Be happy to. ... and, and internal system. If you could just walk through the townhouse portion again. Mm-hmm. In the, in the new area? Yes, uh-huh. In the new area, you have Sweet Grass Lane that comes in here, Beaumont Park, and then Monarch Street, and then this entire... This is an internal street system that they have here and here, and this loops here. There is no planned connection here, but they have this. And again, this, which is built to almo- to, uh, large standards almost parkway with medians and that sort of thing to allow traffic to move here and here, and then, of course, to Monarch Street in this alignment here. And again, that's part of our point. They, they've done an admirable job here with an internal system b- coming to access points that line up with other access points. S- so if you take that point, the, the spacing on those two points into the townhouses, that one and there, that spacing is almost equivalent to the spacing o- on the development plan over here from Monarch down to the requested point. Is that spacing about the same? It's, it's similar. The, these spacings tend to be, I believe, over 300 feet. We measure them and it, it is similar. But as, but as you said, if that, that, that center point, if it went to an inter- internal system, it would be consistent with that of the townhouses if the spacing's kinda within, within reason. Okay. All right. Yes, sir. I will. Thank you. Okay, any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Mr. Kailey. Uh, Rory Kailey with EA Partners. The, uh, site... Well, our client is Auto-Owners Insurance, uh, new to the area. This is going to be their regional, uh, headquarters. Um, what they have done, this area was originally, I think, six lots, and as we had it approved for many, they became very interested in the property. We recorded it that they, this was all one lot that they were taking. Um, so from the get-go, they were interested in this big a chunk of land. They asked for this from the start instead of, you know... Right now, it looks like all their stuff could have fit on, on a much smaller piece of ground. They have all this P-1 and even B3 area. Um, what they do is, they come into an area regional-wise, they set up a new regional headquarters. This one will mostly be administrative people. It's, uh, for claims, writing, and, uh, you and I won't drive up here if we're looking for insurance. This is, uh, more of a corporate system, where they have their independent contractors from the Lexington area and the surrounding counties. You know, they would be the ones who would come in. Um, so it's not going to be a large traffic generator with a lot of turnover of everyday citizens trying to get in and out of this area, um, you know, creating extra conflicts in, in the intersection points. They, uh, wanted an access onto Beaumont Center Parkway, or Circle. Um, it's in the Beaumont Center. This is their office, Beaumont Center address. Front of the building is situated towards that road. Um, we initially looked at trying to give them a write-in and a ride out somewhere along that street frontage. Uh, spacing-wise, you know, where we're at now opposite of Wall Street meets all the regulations. You know, trying to move a write-in/write-out somewhere along through there was more of a conflict with spacing regulations than, um, this entrance. So as it is, um, we presented this way cr- uh, a- as Tom said, there's nothing in the regulations that is precluding us from having this. It's just, uh, you know, a matter of, of taste, I guess, and the client is very, very much wants their front door to be right here. Uh, it's their entrance. They tell me they'll have the conference room set up. The, you know, the boss's offices will all be seen there, and this is how everyone will wit- come to... This is the first time that they know it. The larger parking lot in the back and their phase two lines, um, phase two, they're hoping in five, ten years that they can grow and, and they'll need this next section. Um, that was going to be also for, I wanna say it was under claims or I- I'm, I'm not sure what the insurance jargon is. But, you know, the, the bigger parking lot in the back was set up for their day-to-day people, the employees of the area. So, you know, again, we're s- we're trying to separate, give 'em two access points, let 'em still have the frontage, not create an undue burden onto, um, the entrance at the circle. And in-in laying this out, we figured we were also going to take care of the two people that are usually most adamant about our parking lot layouts, which were the garbage truck and- and the fire truck. Um, now circulation through this first phase, with these two entrances, there will be no backing up or circling around. Um, so I really thought we had-had presented the case and-and taken care of all the people involved. Uh, I would like to have approval of this plan and in dealing with traffic engineering, we can go through and make sure that we've got our sight distances. Um, you know, if-if we need to do something, widen the entrance or angle it or something, I-I'd like to have a chance to work with them as far as meeting what they feel is safe and still have this access point. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Any- any questions for Mr. Kaley? Yep. Yeah, Rory, let me ask you, uh, from the look, from what we're seeing here, it looks like the most of the parking lot eventually is going to come off Monarch Street. Yeah. They wanted their, uh, everyday employees to park in the rear. You know, the- the front is set up for those few people who will come in and for the presence of the building itself. And- and how many spaces do you think you have in front of the building coming in off Wall Street? Um, 12, 19, 20 ... Quick math is 31. A total of ... About 95 total. Okay, 95, so less than a third is- is right here in front. 30 spaces, plus. And then as they grow, you know- Yeah. ... the majority of it will be back here along with this, the- the extra growth. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Kaley? Mr. Cravens? Yeah. Rory, um, Mr. Martin made a point of the townhouses having their own, um, circulation, I guess it is, internal circulation or whatever. That's why they had those access points there, but there's probably, uh, less units in those townhouses, less cars in those townhouses. Uh, and it looks like, to me, this entry would be, uh, it's serving this building. There's no more, uh, encumbering the street than the townhouses do and they have their own- Oh, um- ... access. You see where I'm going? Yeah. I think I said it backwards, but ... Townhouses are 100 units, um, and there are, I want to say, three points of access per 100 residential units. Um, granted, we also had a lot more land. I think we had almost 20 acres when we did that development, um- So- ... as far- as far as spacing out our locations. You see where I'm going? So if it's okay to have an access just for them for less, I mean, looks like it'd be all right to have an access for more over here. Yes, I agree. I agree with you. I would a- I- Thank you, Mr.- I agree also and I- Ms. Whitman? I think from a business standpoint, I mean, I can certainly understand why they would want to orient their- their building with an address of Beaumont Center, because that's easier to find. And, uh, to have the- the entrance off of Beaumont Center, I think, is an asset to that building. So I'm in agreement too. Um, Rory, there are ... There's a median at that point, at Wall Street, is there not? The median is cut for Wall Street. Okay, so Wall Street traffic could make a left turn onto Beaumont Circle? Yeah, that's our office there. That's what I do. So I come off of Wall Street and- and turn left onto, uh, Beaumont Center Circle, heading back towards, uh, Beaumont Center Parkway, the main entrance. Um, there are no traffic lights at all on Beaumont Circle. Correct. None at all. Um, have you done any sort of comparison with the volume of vehicles, uh, let's say at the Y, with, um, any of the other users on the interior of the Circle? Uh, no, but being there, I can tell you that Y turns them over very fast. There's a lot of cars in and out of there and that's a big c of parking lot. How many access points do they have, do you know? Oh, YMCA has got the one main entrance off the new, off of the Beaumont Center Circle, and then they have a shared point that ties into the, um, daycare next door to them and they can exit that way as well. Uh, that was set up, I think, as a, as a bigger boost for the daycare, because the daycare's a right in, right out only. So for people coming the other direction, you'll actually cut through the Y to go to the daycare. I used to do that too. Thank you. Ms. Ph- Mr. Day? A-a-and I'm- I'm going to take the other side of this thing, because I think it gets down to, uh, just a question of what- what we want and what we're, you know, what we're looking for in developments. I, and I said this at the commissioner meeting on- on last Thursday, is that, you know, to me, that's one of the roads in this city that works. And part of it, I think, is because we don't have the accesses going to private businesses like this. I mean, I go to the post office out there and- and like to go to your office. You're not turning ... You ma- you make a different turn when you turn onto a road than when you're turning into a business. I know that sounds crazy, but when you do it at the road, you know you're going to go a little faster. You don't- you don't have to stop. There ain't gonna be anybody in front of you, more or less. And, you know, I ... Because you- you ... We still got a lot of property out there that ain't developed and, you know, if this happens, I could see, you know, more- more and more entrances and access off the thing. I- I mean, just like I said, this is just a personal opinion. You know, we go all over the country, go to places. ... in Atlanta, in Nashville, whatever it is, and you ride around in the corporate headquarters of those places, they don't all have... They may have a big sign out in front, but you still get to the parking lot from a different way, and that's my personal opinion, and I'm just gonna tell you that I think, uh, I think they've done a great job out there, uh, except for getting out on Harrisburg Road. Um, but other than that, I, I just hate to see it, because I'm just afraid that we'll, we're gonna mess that thing up. Thank you, Mr. Day. Uh, I, I, I do wanna... I agree with Mr. Day. I think, uh, there's other ways to achieve visibility and, and access. And, you know, we're... The plan that's been put in place and the plan that works and the highway... the road connection, uh, works, and to designate a, a specific access point defeats the plan. I mean, what's the use of doing the plan if you... And I understand you work with compromises and things like that, but, uh, over half of this has... appears to been, been developed with those planned access points. And to interject another one, I think, uh, defeats really what we're up here debating and talking about, uh, and, and approved prior to this particular segment of this area, so. Um, that's my two cents worth, I guess. Any other, any other comments? Okay. You have anything, Mr. Kaley? Um, well, I guess, uh, I guess my question is as we go forward from this point, are we voting on the plan in totality, or are we voting just on that location? Because they'd hate to have the whole plan thrown away if you guys are... if, if it's, you know, if it's something where we have to, uh, work harder with traffic engineering or, or get, you know, the corporate people in here to present their case, you know? What, what is... I guess, what are we down to? Approval of the plan up or down that access point, or is it approval of the plan in general? So I n- Um, I believe I would ask Mr., Mr. Martin. Uh, I think staff's position is the access point at this point, right? Yes, sir, and, and y- you could approve the plan subject to removal of that access point. That is your, your right to do so. Okay. Okay. Is everyone clear on that? Okay. All right. Um, any other comments, questions? Do we need to have a discussion about the phasing? Is, is that an issue, Roy? Um, I'm not really sure what... I mean, I can take the second phase off, if that's the issue. They just, you know, they wanted to show th- what they plan to do for the whole entire five acres or whatever th- the size site it is they have. Um, is that what staff's looking for, or are they just concerned where I was showing the next parking lot? Thank you. Uh, w- we wanted to discuss phasing, first of all, for two reasons. They just showed us a general outline of a possible building. But again, it was in relationship to this asse- access point, and all the other systems that have evolved in this area, the connections that exist. And, and therefore, we felt that phasing was a legitimate question in lieu of the access, or, or in relationship to the access. So we need to leave the, the phasing on? I believe that the access issue would satisfy the phasing question as well. Mr. Penn, also to follow up, the, the staff felt the phasing that was being proposed, uh, inhibited the connectivity of the access that's at our primary issue. That's why we wanted to discuss that as well. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Yeah. Okay. Can I ask for some clarification? Since this client owns everything but that one corner, I guess I'm confused as to how their future phasing prohibits future connectivity points. I'm, I'm, I'm a little confused. Uh, I, I think from point's perspective, again, if this was a ci- if this was allowed to remain, we would, we would prefer that it connect into a system and more directly into a system, uh, that would somehow move through this area. And again, we didn't want to get into any kind of exact layout, but it's similar to other things that have happened, as we showed you, in this area with the different internal... E- even a simple internal connection here, these internal systems, we just felt like that there were options available to do that and to accomplish that. And, uh, it could be, again, with the orientation, you know, the building could be moved closer to the road, parking could be concentrated in the rear, and connect to an internal system that would feed... I mean, we, we believe there's options there that are just an improvement. Uh. But if, if that's gonna be the only building, I know it's not a quadrant, it's not broken into fours, but if this insurance company is gonna be the only building within that five acre, six acre tract, then what's the access network for? Well, again, future phasing and future development, we would see a larger building, more people, more employees, and, uh, they're... This could possibly develop separately as well. So, uh, and again, future is a, a word that gives us great pause. Uh, yeah. Mr. Cravens, do you have a question? Uh, I wanna go back to the townhouse. What, what type of road is that that goes into those? Again, these- Yeah. ... these are private access easements, sir. Okay. But, uh, Mr. Day stated that, that you could turn into a street easier than you could going in a apron or something, going... Do they have an apron on them going into them? These? I, I believe they are, just have- I- ... turning radiuses. Right where they connect onto Beaumont, not... Yeah. Uh, they, they do- Do they... Is that a street that, or does it have an apron? I don't think they're at... I don't... They're at grade, aren't they? I'd have to- I think they're at grade too. I don't think there is an apron. Yeah. It seemed like the asphalt just continued- But, but it's not... The street just continues in there like it's a street? I think so. I think so. Yes, sir. I, I've heard this. Let me have to see what it's... Does Aerial have it yet? We believe that's true. That's what it looks like. Yeah. Aerial, I believe, yes, it l- appears to be at grade. Yeah. Yeah, I believe all this has been designed at grade, uh, at these connections. And these are streets. This internally is different, these private access easements, but these connections, the... Now, this is not at grade- Okay. ... into this parking lot. You do go up and over- Th- Those going that way are streets? Here, here. Yes, sir. They're at grade. They're c- city streets? Hmm. Well, I, I don't know the status of all of them currently, whether they're public or private. There's a combination in the area. I do know that some of these pr- streets are private, and they're also in the system to become public, so, but, um- But you can use it- Within the townhouses, it's private. It's within is private. Okay. Relativly. So the entrance is not th- the same as if- if you were going into a service road or something? Correct. I mean, I guess I'm saying if it's okay over there, why isn't it okay over here on this, this insurance company to have the same kind of access when there's just about the same amount of cars? It's Monarch Street. And, and I think what they're- I mean, alternative is, you know, trashing the whole plan, pulling the building up, going and making an entrance g- going around that other street. It's the same people doing it. Yep. You're just putting them all on Monarch Street instead of letting them filter out those other entrances. Well, I mean, they're not- I don't know. I go- I can't see... Yeah. And this client does own everything except for the corner of Lake Crest Circle and Beaumont Center Circle. It's, uh, I believe, a one-acre lot that's, you know, still to be developed. Yeah. You're only going to have one way out. I mean, that's, that's something somebody doesn't want, I'm sure. Fire department or somebody. I think you'd have an access off Midnight and off Monarch. Yeah. Midnight will come off of phase two, and at that point, you know, you'd end up with, you know, five acres having three a- access points to the three street frontages. Well, I think our, I think our options here, we have, you know, should the plan be approved, um, we said discuss it, and I think the Subdivision Committee brought it to the full commission and, you know, we can either say resolve access to Beaumont Circle, if that's the pleasure of Commission or someone wishing to make a motion, or there's been some discussion about, uh, not allowing that access to Beaumont Circle, and we can make a motion subject to the removal of the access points. So, at this point, it can go either way, um, and it would just depend upon that, that motion that's being made by the Commission, so... Mr. Evans? Okay. I'd like to make a motion for approval of DP2008-88 with the, um... I don't know what to do with the discussion items. Are, are they still there, or...? Can you delete them? Delete them? Are you saying delete them or resolve? Are you saying resolve the access point? Okay, resolve. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second, um, to resolve. So I guess the phasing in your motion, that, you're saying delete 11? Well, I don't want the whole plan, uh, as you're always concerned- Because the phasing- ... the whole plan turned down because of the access, so yeah, resolve. Okay. All right. So essentially, you're saying resolve 10, resolve 10, and then delete 11? Because I think the phasing is not an issue if the access point is there. I could agree with that, yeah. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve DP2008-88, uh, subject to the, uh, 10 conditions changing, 10 to resolve and- Can I ask you a clarification? ... deleting 11. Yes, point of clarification? Um, clar- point of clarification. If the access is granted, um, onto Beaumont Circle, then we're still talking a right-in/right-out? No, it wouldn't. Uh, at, at the moment, it's not shown as a right-in/right-out because we located it opposite the wall street, so it's, you know... To do a right-in/right-out, we'll have to come back in with a, a median point at that spot. Um, I think, I think that would kind of defeat the purpose if you can't turn left into there from the outer loop of Beaumont Center Circle. Free access. I think so. And, you know, that, that, we still have traffic engineering. We're going to have to prove to them that we can do it safely within the confines of the regulations. So as the motion is made, it's, it's clear access, no right-ins/right-outs? Okay. All right, we have a motion, uh, on the table. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Ai. All opposed, please say no. No. No. Um, can we just poll, just so we know? Mr. Holmes? No. No. Mr. Richardson? Yes. Ms. Whitman? Yes. Mr. Penn? No. Mr. Penn? No. Ms. Phillips. Um, yes. Yes. Mr. Gravens. Yes. Mr. Vaughan. No. At four and four. Did that pass the quarter? Ah, let's see, who's our... Parliamentarian doesn't pass. I'm gonna have to, I guess, defer to l- legal, ah, four to four tie? Or... I believe it passes. It was four to four, correct? Is that... Okay. Anybody got a quarter? That that did not pass. I mean, the- That did not pass. ... floor is open to accept another motion. Okay. Floor is open for another motion. Mr. Kaley. Um, since it looks like we're going to be at a standstill, should we just postpone for a month and see if I can't make traffic engineering a little happier with the safety of this thing? Is that consensus, gentlemen? We already went through a lot of trouble- That's a tough consensus. Okay. All right. I need a motion to make- I need a motion to do that, yes. To reschedule? You want a mo- you want a month? Is that right? Um, okay. Well, how busy is two weeks? I mean I, I don't know one way or the other what, what the schedule is like. We have, ah, we have five zone changes on your agenda two weeks from today, and we've postponed, ah, one subdivision item to that meeting also. Let's just go for August then. All right. One month. August. Okay. Is that, ah, what, what, what date is it? It's the 14th- The 14th. ... isn't it? Okay. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for one month postponement of DP2008-88 to the August 14th meeting. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Okay. At this time, um, I guess, uh, we c- conclude all of our applications, uh, performance bonds and letters of credit. If we could have a call. Mr. Chairman, I move for call and release of the bonds as presented on the white paper. Um, two pages. Okay. We have a moti- motion and a second for release and call of bonds on the, the white memorandum. Um, all those in favor of the motion to, uh, release and call, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. At this time, um, I guess, um, I'll ask the staff if, uh, they have anything they would like to present at this time. There's Mr. King. Mr. Chairman. Snuck in on you. Um, the only thing the staff would mention is remind you of your work session next Thursday in this room at 1:30. Um, the lineup is going to include, first of all, a discussion of CenterPoint, not the issues regarding the case, but when you would set the hearing. We expect you'll probably want to, to set a special meeting, and we're going to give a, a couple of suggestions. Um, part of the answer as to which of the dates might be better, we certainly might want to hear from the two main, uh, parties involved in the case, but also the staff is interested in the commission thinking about what you would like us to do with the very lengthy and long record that has already been amassed in this case. Um, and, and part of that answer will let us know whether we feel we have enough time for the perhaps August, or we need to wait till September. So, we would like you perhaps during the next week to be giving some thought to the questions you might have about that record, about what you might want the staff to do for you in, in getting that case ready for you to hear. The other thing we thought we might do, since you've really only had one courthouse area appeal, and it's been some years, is to give you a primer on the law and the ordinance and what the, uh, findings you need to make, or what, what the, uh, considerations are. And that will be more of a general informative nature. Again, it won't be any substantive discussion of the case itself, 'cause you will be sitting in a quasi-judicial manner on that case. So, um, I'm sure Rochelle will make sure we follow the straight and narrow in what we talk about and what we don't talk about on that. Uh, the other items, uh, that we have on tap, you had asked for and we have scheduled the Division of Historic Preservation to present to you the status, ah, and an update on the, uh, revised design guidelines for historic districts, and they will be here ready to do that. Um, I thought I would also give you an update on what actions have occurred between our office and sanitary sewers, or pardon me, the Division of Water, uh, Quality, uh, on the follow-up from the ad hoc committee discussion and, uh, working on developing the interim procedures. I'll give you an update on that. And I understand that, uh, you would also, as a commission, like a primer on bonds, performance bonds, uh, and that process. You recently had a, uh, appeal on that, so we'll have a little bit of education on what that's all about and how the planning commission fits in on that. There may be another item or two where we give you a brief update, depending on how things shake out in the next week, but those four items would be the main items for the work session next Thursday. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. King. Any, uh, any questions, um, comments with regards to that? I know that, uh, I, I guess on, on, on the appeal, um-... we- considering the one that we had several years ago, I think it'd be good just to, as you say, have the primer on the law and the ordinance, and really what- what the appeal is about. So, I think it will be good, uh, for all of us. Um, other than that, I guess that's really all we had on this end. Just- just have a quorum for next August. Uh, yes. Uh, I guess, um, I guess we have three, uh, potential new commissioners being recommended by the administration. Um, and I hope that we are able to fill the quorum towards the end of this month. Uh, don't want to say that there's any guarantees, but I do know of- of one absence at- at the end of this month. Well, yours is not the one I knew about. Oh, you know about The council returns on August 12th with their work session, but their next meeting, I believe, is August 14th, so you will be, um, short your membership at least till that date. Okay, I- I believe we may be short for- I don't think we're gonna have a quorum on the 24th. We may not have a quorum on the 24th. The 24th of July? July, yes. The, uh ... We have a date right now, wouldn't it? We would point out that, as an alternative, you do have the fifth Thursday in July, and you could schedule a special meeting on the- the fifth Thursday if- Which day is Thursday? The 31st. That's the- 31st. Yeah, on the Friday. Okay. I will be out on the 31st, but certainly Mr. Day can ... So that's- that's one that's out. Does- does that- does that still give us six on the 31st? I think you'll probably need to vote then today to do that, make that change in the meeting and filing schedule so that we can then notify all the applicants who were postponed today and the folks that have the zone change hearings coming up. Okay. Um, gosh, how are we going to handle it? All the- all the notices have already been mailed, uh, for the five zone changes, uh, that'll be on the 24th agenda. We've also posted those properties with the zoning signs. I think the only way, um, that I can think of you can proceed is just wait and see if you have a quorum on the 24th by some chance. Uh, if not, uh, if you acted today to schedule a meeting on the 31st, we can, in essence, automatically bump everything one week, re-notice as best we're able, um, for those items that would be on the 24th to be possibly heard on the 31st. That wouldn't create a huge backlog for you then in August that way. Um, I- I wish I could think of another option for you, and I- I can't. Yeah, and- and- and I was just trying to think ahead knowing of one, you know, with exp- ex- expir- expired terms and new appointments, thinking ahead what the next two, you know, the 24th was gonna- Sure. ... appear to be. Yeah. And, uh, knowing of one, I was advised earlier this week of one absence, so I felt like it would be appropriate. So I, you know ... I don't think you'll have quorum. Yeah. How we've done it in the past- Need six. ... we've had this happen a few times on your subdivision meeting, which would be an agenda like you've had today, where, um, when we discover, you know, late in the day that we do not have a quorum for your regular meeting, uh, the commission has just bumped everything to your next available meeting. So if today you decided you were going to have a regular meeting on the 31st, that would allow you to- to bump everything one week, uh, if you could have a quorum that day. Move the meeting. I think we better- I think we better have a regular meeting on the 31st. Okay. Um, how does the commission feel about what- what we've discussed? I- I know folks that- Are we sure we're gonna have three people out? I'm gone the 24th. I'm outta the county. All right, Frank's gone, Mike's gone. Will you be back the 31st? I'll be back the 31st. When? Because if we just had two people off, we'd still have our six, wouldn't we? Right. So we just have to commit that everybody is gonna be here. On the 17th, I'm out. On the 24th, I'm out. Why don't we, um... You say there's a chance you'll be, on the 31st, be here? Okay. Why don't we hedge our bets, I guess, and move the meeting, uh, uh, officially move it to the 31st? I mean, it's no sense in... And- and do what we have to do, I guess, to accommodate. Um... Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we officially move our July 24th meeting to July the 31st, bumping back each of the subsequent meetings. Okay, we have a motion and a second to, uh, move our meeting from the 21st of July to the 31st. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please say, "Aye." Aye. Aye. It's the 24th to the 31st. Yeah, I said from the 24th to the 31st. I'm sorry. Did I? Okay, sorry. Yeah, yeah. From the 24th to the 31st. Okay, sorry. Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry about that. Okay, um, I'll approve... All- all for the motion, please say, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we'll do our best to notify everybody. Not- not to worry. Thank you. I- I- you know, I- We'll- we'll do our best. We'll do- Okay. ... whatever. We appreciate, uh- we- we appreciate all you do, and we know you work hard at it. Sometimes, things come in here. No problem. And we forget that. Yeah, that's worse than you today. Yeah. We owe Picard here. Okay, um, are there any other items a commission might have, or- Database, anything like that. ... staff, at this time? Any other items from staff? That's it? Okay, great. All right, I hope, uh, everyone can make next Thursday, uh, for the, uh, work session. Next Thursday is the 24th, isn't it? Yes, that's correct. Okay, if there's no further business, uh, chair will entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. Second. All right. Thank you all. Whoops.