# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - August 14, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · August 14, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/566 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/566?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-08-14 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 23,587 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 August 14, 2008, at 1:40 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding as chair. The commission addressed 18 agenda items during the session, taking 18 motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing 4 public comments from attendees. The meeting was characterized by a significant number of postponements, with 9 development plans and subdivision proposals being deferred to future meetings, including projects such as Cardinal Hill Hospital Development Plan, Red Mile Square Development Plan, and Hampton Springs Preliminary Plan. Despite the numerous postponements, the commission successfully approved 8 items, including several subdivision developments and preliminary plans such as Patchen Wilkes Unit 2B, Calumet Terrace Subdivision Lots 8 and 9, and the East Hills Shopping Center Lot 3A amended plan. Key business accomplished included the approval of meeting minutes, multiple subdivision and development plan approvals, the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit, and setting a date and time for a Centerpoint De Novo hearing. One agenda item, the Lakeview Island Unit 3 discussion, was withdrawn from consideration. The mix of approvals, postponements, and administrative actions reflected typical planning commission business addressing both ongoing development projects and procedural matters within Lexington-Fayette County's planning process. ## Attendance The Commission meeting on August 14, 2008 had full attendance with all eight members present. **Present:** • Randall Vaughn (arrived late) • Neill Day • Ed Holmes • Carolyn Richardson • Joan Whitman • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Mike Cravens • Frank Penn **Absent:** None **Late Arrivals:** • Randall Vaughn All Commission members participated in the meeting, with Randall Vaughn joining the proceedings after the meeting had begun. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission conducted 18 votes during the August 14, 2008 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously by voice vote. **Administrative Actions** The meeting began with approval of minutes from three previous meetings (May 8, June 10, and June 26, 2008). Lynn Roche-Phillips motioned and Frank Penn seconded, with all seven present commissioners voting in favor [timestamp: 02:00]. **Postponements** Multiple development items were postponed to the September 11, 2008 meeting: • DP 2008-79 (Cardinal Hill Hospital) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 05:00] • DP 2008-104 (Red Mile Square) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips [timestamp: 11:00] • PLAN 2008-71P (Hampton Springs preliminary plan) - motioned by Mike Cravens, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 13:00] • PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F (Thomas Communications Units 1-C and 1-D) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Randall Vaughn [timestamp: 15:00] • PLAN 2008-76F (Bogie Estate, Lot 1) - motioned by Ed Holmes, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 17:00] • DP 2008-88 (Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1) - motioned by Randall Vaughn, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 19:00] • PLAN 2008-102C (Gess Family Partnership Property) - motioned by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 21:00] DP 2008-77 (Michael Gentry Property) was postponed indefinitely, motioned by Lynn Roche-Phillips and seconded by Mike Cravens [timestamp: 09:00]. PLAN 2008-28F (Lakeview Island, Unit 3) was withdrawn, motioned by Mike Cravens and seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 07:00]. **Approvals** Six development plans received approval with conditions: • PLAN 2006-75P (Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B) reapproval with previous conditions and waiver [timestamp: 23:00] • PLAN 2008-2P (Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9) with staff conditions and waiver [timestamp: 25:00] • PLAN 2008-44F (High Mount Subdivision) with revised staff conditions [timestamp: 27:00] • DP 2008-80 (Chevy Chase Subdivision) with specific yard requirements [timestamp: 29:00] • DP 2008-117 (Berry Crest Subdivision) deleting condition 10 and granting waiver [timestamp: 31:00] • DP 2008-75 (East Hills Shopping Center) deleting condition 12 [timestamp: 33:00] The Commission also approved performance bond releases [timestamp: 35:00] and set a date for the Centerpoint de novo hearing [timestamp: 37:00]. ## Public Comment Four members of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period, focusing on two main agenda items. **Hampton Springs Access Issue** Keith Messinger spoke on behalf of JL and Wanda Hatter regarding the Hampton Springs access issue [timestamp: 13:30]. Messinger referenced a past court case involving access through a private easement on the Hatters' property and expressed agreement with the staff recommendation to postpone consideration of the matter. **Chevy Chase Subdivision Garage Placement** Three speakers addressed concerns about proposed changes to the Chevy Chase Subdivision, specifically regarding garage placement requirements: • Susan Chestnut-Lewis expressed opposition to the proposed garage placement configuration [timestamp: 29:30]. She advocated for garage placement that would conform with existing structures in the neighborhood, citing concerns about air circulation and view impacts for residents. • Rosalyn Harris requested that the Commission postpone consideration of the Chevy Chase Subdivision plan [timestamp: 29:45]. Harris cited recent changes to the proposal that would affect neighborhood residents, particularly the garage placement requirements, as reasons for needing additional time for review. • Jeff Duncan, identifying himself as President of the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association, also supported postponing the item [timestamp: 30:00]. Duncan emphasized the importance of maintaining uniformity throughout the neighborhood, particularly with regard to garage placement standards. All three speakers addressing the Chevy Chase Subdivision matter expressed concerns about changes to garage placement requirements and their potential impact on neighborhood character and resident welfare. The consistent theme among these commenters was a preference for either postponement or modification of the proposed changes to better align with existing neighborhood standards. ## Appointments The Commission addressed two resignations from the Urban County Planning Commission during the August 14, 2008 meeting. • **Linda Godfrey** resigned from the Urban County Planning Commission • **Lyle Aiton** resigned from the Urban County Planning Commission Both resignations were formally acknowledged by the Commission, creating two vacancies on the Urban County Planning Commission that will need to be filled through the standard appointment process. ## Contested Items Two significant contested matters arose during the August 14, 2008 Commission meeting, involving both community opposition and procedural disputes. **Chevy Chase Subdivision Garage Placement** Community residents voiced strong opposition to the proposed garage placement in the Chevy Chase Subdivision development. The primary concern centered on the developer's proposed garage configuration, which differed from existing neighborhood standards. Residents argued that the garages should be positioned to conform with existing garage placements in the area to maintain proper air circulation and preserve neighborhood views. The community opposition reflected broader concerns about maintaining the established character and environmental conditions of the subdivision. The residents emphasized that consistency with existing garage orientations would better serve both aesthetic and practical considerations for the neighborhood. **Centerpoint De Novo Hearing Process** A procedural dispute emerged regarding the handling of the Centerpoint project appeals process. The Commission faced the complex situation of managing two separate appeals related to the same Centerpoint development project. Commissioners engaged in detailed discussions about the appropriate procedural framework for conducting the de novo hearing, including questions about proper time limits and hearing procedures. The dispute centered on establishing the correct legal process for handling multiple appeals simultaneously while ensuring due process for all parties involved. The Commission needed to resolve these procedural questions before moving forward with the substantive review of the Centerpoint project appeals. Both contested items required careful consideration of community input and legal procedures, demonstrating the Commission's role in balancing development interests with community concerns while maintaining proper administrative processes. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 02:00] The Commission considered the approval of minutes from three previous meetings held on May 8, 2008; June 10, 2008; and June 26, 2008. Lynn Roche-Phillips and Frank Penn were the key speakers during this agenda item discussion. The Commission reviewed the minutes from all three meetings as part of their standard procedural process to ensure accurate record-keeping of their official proceedings. The minutes from the three meetings were presented to the Commission for their consideration and formal approval. Following the discussion, the Commission voted to approve the minutes from all three meetings: May 8, 2008; June 10, 2008; and June 26, 2008. This approval ensures that the official records of these previous Commission meetings are now part of the permanent record and can be referenced for future proceedings and decision-making processes. ## Cardinal Hill Hospital Development Plan Postponement [timestamp: 05:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-79 regarding the Cardinal Hill Hospital development plan during the August 14, 2008 meeting. The discussion involved three key speakers: John Carman, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Richardson, who addressed the Commission regarding the proposed development plan for Cardinal Hill Hospital. Following the presentation and discussion among Commission members, the Commission voted to postpone consideration of the Cardinal Hill Hospital development plan. The item will be rescheduled for review at the Commission's next regular meeting on September 11, 2008. The postponement allows additional time for further review and consideration of the development proposal before the Commission makes its final determination on the matter. ## Lakeview Island, Unit 3 Discussion Withdrawal [timestamp: 07:00] The Commission addressed agenda item PLAN 2008-28F regarding the withdrawal of continued discussion for Lakeview Island, Unit 3. The item involved removing a previously scheduled discussion from the agenda as the circumstances that necessitated the original review had changed. Key speakers during this brief agenda item included Dick Murphy, Mike Cravens, and Carolyn Richardson. The discussion centered on the fact that a waiver that had been under consideration for the Lakeview Island, Unit 3 development was no longer needed, making the continued discussion unnecessary. The Commission determined that since the waiver requirement had been resolved or was no longer applicable to the project, there was no need to continue with the planned discussion of this matter. This represented a procedural action to clean up the agenda and remove an item that was no longer relevant to current planning considerations. The outcome was the formal withdrawal of the discussion item from the Commission's ongoing business. This administrative action allowed the Commission to focus its time and resources on other pressing planning matters while ensuring that the Lakeview Island, Unit 3 project could proceed without the previously anticipated regulatory discussion. The withdrawal was processed efficiently, reflecting the straightforward nature of removing an agenda item that was no longer necessary due to changed circumstances in the underlying development project. ## Michael Gentry Property Development Plan Postponement [timestamp: 09:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-77 regarding the postponement of the Michael Gentry Property development plan. The discussion involved key speakers Matt Carter, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Mike Cravens. The Commission reviewed the request to indefinitely postpone the development plan for the Michael Gentry Property. During the discussion, commissioners examined the circumstances surrounding the postponement request and considered the implications for the proposed development. Following deliberation among the commissioners, the Commission approved the indefinite postponement of the Michael Gentry Property development plan. The decision effectively removes the development proposal from active consideration without a specified timeline for potential future review. The postponement represents a significant outcome for the development project, as it suspends all planning activities related to the Michael Gentry Property development indefinitely. ## Red Mile Square Development Plan Postponement [timestamp: 11:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-104 regarding the postponement of the Red Mile Square development plan during their August 14, 2008 meeting. The discussion involved three key speakers: Andy Holmes, Frank Penn, and Lynn Roche-Phillips, who presented the request to delay consideration of the Red Mile Square development plan. Following the presentation and discussion among commissioners, the Commission voted to approve the postponement of the Red Mile Square development plan. The item will be rescheduled for consideration at the Commission's September 11, 2008 meeting. The postponement allows additional time for review and preparation before the Commission takes up this development proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting. ## Hampton Springs Preliminary Plan Postponement [timestamp: 13:00] The Commission considered the postponement of PLAN 2008-71P, the Hampton Springs Preliminary Plan, during their August 14, 2008 meeting. The discussion involved three key speakers: Rory Kahly, Mike Cravens, and Joan Whitman, who addressed the need to delay consideration of the preliminary plan. The Commission ultimately approved the postponement, rescheduling the Hampton Springs preliminary plan review to their September 11, 2008 meeting. This delay will allow additional time for review and preparation before the plan comes before the Commission for formal consideration. The postponement ensures that all parties will have adequate opportunity to address any outstanding issues or concerns related to the Hampton Springs development proposal before it proceeds through the approval process. ## Thomas Communications, Inc. Plans Postponement [timestamp: 15:00] The Commission considered agenda items PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F regarding Thomas Communications, Inc. plans for Units 1-C and 1-D. The discussion involved key speakers Rory Kahly, Frank Penn, and Randall Vaughn. The Commission unanimously approved postponing consideration of the Thomas Communications, Inc. plans to the September 11, 2008 meeting. The specific reasons for the postponement were not detailed in the available materials, but the decision allows additional time for review or preparation of the development proposals. The postponement affects both Unit 1-C and Unit 1-D components of the Thomas Communications, Inc. development project. The Commission's approval of the postponement ensures these items will receive full consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting. ## Bogie Estate, Lot 1 Postponement [timestamp: 17:00] The Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2008-76F regarding the postponement of the Bogie Estate, Lot 1 plan. The discussion involved key speakers Rory Kahly, Ed Holmes, and Joan Whitman. The Commission reviewed the request to postpone consideration of the Bogie Estate, Lot 1 development plan to allow additional time for review and preparation. Following discussion among the commissioners, the Commission voted to approve the postponement. The Bogie Estate, Lot 1 plan will be rescheduled for consideration at the Commission's September 11, 2008 meeting, providing the applicant and staff additional time to address any outstanding issues before the item returns for formal review. ## Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 Postponement [timestamp: 19:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-88 regarding the postponement of the Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 development plan. Key participants in the discussion included Rory Kahly, Randall Vaughn, and Joan Whitman. The Commission discussed moving the consideration of the Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 plan from the current meeting to a future date. The specific reasons for the postponement were addressed during the discussion among the commissioners and staff. Following deliberation, the Commission approved the postponement of the Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 plan. The item was rescheduled for consideration at the Commission's September 11, 2008 meeting, allowing additional time for preparation or review of the development proposal. The postponement was formally approved, ensuring that the Beaumont Farm development plan would receive proper consideration at the next scheduled meeting date. ## Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property Postponement [timestamp: 21:00] The Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2008-102C regarding the Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property postponement request during the August 14, 2008 meeting. Key speakers during the discussion included: • Rory Kahly • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Joan Whitman The Commission reviewed the request to postpone consideration of the Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property plan. After discussion among the commissioners and staff, the Commission approved the postponement request. **Outcome:** The Commission voted to postpone the Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property plan to the September 11, 2008 Commission meeting. This postponement allows additional time for review and preparation before the item returns for consideration. ## Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B Preliminary Plan Reapproval [timestamp: 23:00] The Commission reviewed PLAN 2006-75P for the Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B preliminary plan reapproval during the August 14, 2008 meeting. Key speakers included Tom Martin, Rory Kahly, and Mike Cravens who presented details and discussed the proposal. The item involved reapproving a preliminary plan for Unit 2B of the Patchen Wilkes development. The discussion centered on maintaining consistency with previously established conditions while also addressing a waiver request that was part of the reapproval process. After reviewing the proposal and hearing from the speakers, the Commission voted to approve the Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B preliminary plan reapproval. The approval was granted subject to all previous conditions that had been established for the development, ensuring continuity with earlier planning decisions. Additionally, the Commission granted the requested waiver as part of their approval. The reapproval allows the development to move forward under the updated preliminary plan while maintaining the regulatory framework and conditions that were previously established for the project. ## Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9 Preliminary Plan Approval [timestamp: 25:00] The Commission reviewed preliminary plan approval for PLAN 2008-2P, the Calumet Terrace Subdivision involving Lots 8 and 9. The discussion included presentations and input from key speakers Tom Martin, Brian Hill, and Frank Penn. During the review process, staff presented their analysis of the subdivision proposal along with recommended conditions for approval. The applicant also requested a waiver as part of the preliminary plan submission, which required Commission consideration. The Commission evaluated the technical aspects of the subdivision plan, including compliance with local subdivision regulations and development standards. Staff recommendations included specific conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval process to ensure the development meets municipal requirements. Following discussion of the proposal's merits and consideration of the waiver request, the Commission voted to approve the Calumet Terrace Subdivision preliminary plan for Lots 8 and 9. The approval was granted subject to the conditions outlined by staff during the presentation. Additionally, the Commission approved the requested waiver that had been submitted as part of the application. This preliminary plan approval represents an important step in the subdivision development process, allowing the project to move forward to subsequent phases of review and development, provided all staff conditions are satisfied. ## High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17 Final Plan Approval [timestamp: 27:00] The Commission reviewed PLAN 2008-44F for the High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17 final plan approval during the August 14, 2008 meeting. Staff member Cheryl Gallt presented the proposal and outlined the revised conditions that had been prepared for the final plan approval. The discussion involved input from key speakers including Don White and Joan Whitman, who participated in the review of the subdivision details and conditions. The Commission examined the final plan specifications and the staff-recommended conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval process. The revised conditions addressed various technical and regulatory requirements for the subdivision development. Following the presentation and discussion of the proposal, the Commission moved forward with their decision on the final plan. The outcome was an approval of the High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17 final plan, contingent upon the applicant meeting the revised conditions as outlined by staff during the meeting. The approval allows the subdivision development to proceed to the next phase, with the understanding that all specified conditions must be satisfied in accordance with the Commission's requirements. ## Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7 Development Plan Approval [timestamp: 29:00] The Commission reviewed and discussed Development Plan DP 2008-80 for Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7. Key speakers during the discussion included Chris Taylor, Dick Murphy, and Mike Cravens. The development plan presented specific setback requirements that were central to the Commission's consideration. The proposal included a six-foot side yard setback and a two-foot rear yard setback for the lot development. Following their review and discussion of the development plan details, the Commission voted to approve DP 2008-80. The approval included the proposed six-foot side yard and two-foot rear yard setbacks as presented. The Commission's decision allows the development to proceed according to the approved plan specifications for this lot within the Chevy Chase Subdivision. ## Berry Crest Subdivision, Lots 8 & 9 Development Plan Approval [timestamp: 31:00] The Commission reviewed development plan DP 2008-117 for Berry Crest Subdivision, Lots 8 & 9. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin, Tony Barrett, and Neill Day. The primary focus of the discussion centered on the conditions attached to the development plan approval and a requested waiver. Specifically, the Commission addressed condition number 10, which was ultimately determined to be unnecessary or inappropriate for this particular development. After reviewing the details of the proposal and considering the input from staff and the applicant, the Commission took action to modify the recommended conditions. The Commission voted to delete condition number 10 from the development plan requirements, streamlining the approval process for the developer. Additionally, the Commission granted a waiver that had been requested as part of the development plan review. The specific nature of the waiver was not detailed in the available information, but it was approved as part of the overall development plan consideration. The Berry Crest Subdivision development plan for Lots 8 & 9 received full approval from the Commission with the modifications noted above. The approval allows the developer to proceed with their plans for these specific lots within the Berry Crest Subdivision, subject to the remaining conditions that were not deleted during the Commission's review. The Commission's decision to both delete condition number 10 and grant the requested waiver suggests that the development plan met the necessary standards and requirements, with the modifications making the approval more practical and appropriate for the specific circumstances of this project. ## East Hills Shopping Center, Lot 3A Amended Plan Approval [timestamp: 33:00] The Commission reviewed agenda item DP 2008-75, an amended plan approval for East Hills Shopping Center, Lot 3A. The discussion focused on modifications to previously approved conditions for the development. Key speakers during the discussion included Chris Taylor and Lynn Roche-Phillips, who presented details about the proposed amendments to the existing plan approval. The primary change under consideration involved the deletion of condition number 12 from the original approval conditions. The Commission deliberated on the merits of removing this specific condition and its potential impact on the development project. After reviewing the amended plan details and considering the implications of the proposed changes, the Commission reached a decision on the matter. The Commission ultimately approved the East Hills Shopping Center, Lot 3A amended plan, including the deletion of condition number 12 as requested. This approval allows the development to proceed under the modified conditions, removing the previously imposed requirement that was outlined in the deleted condition. ## Release and Call of Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 35:00] The Commission addressed the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit during the August 14, 2008 meeting. This agenda item involved the review and approval of financial instruments related to development projects and municipal obligations. Neill Day and Joan Whitman served as the key speakers for this item, presenting the details of the bonds and letters of credit under consideration. The discussion focused on the standard administrative process of releasing performance bonds for completed projects and calling letters of credit where necessary. The Commission reviewed the financial instruments that were eligible for release, indicating that the associated development projects or municipal requirements had been satisfactorily completed. This routine administrative action allows developers to recover their posted financial guarantees once all conditions have been met. The item proceeded without significant debate or concerns raised by Commission members. The straightforward nature of the release and call process suggests that all documentation and project completions were in proper order and met the established criteria. Following the presentation and brief discussion, the Commission approved the release and call of the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. This approval allows for the administrative processing of the financial instruments and provides closure for the completed projects and obligations under review. The action represents standard municipal business practice for managing development-related financial guarantees and ensures proper fiscal oversight of public and private development projects within the jurisdiction. ## Set Date and Time for Centerpoint De Novo Hearing [timestamp: 37:00] The Commission addressed scheduling for the Centerpoint de novo hearing during this agenda item. Chris King and Lynn Roche-Phillips served as the key speakers for this discussion. The Commission deliberated on the appropriate date and time to conduct the Centerpoint de novo hearing, which is a legal proceeding that allows for a complete re-examination of a case. After discussion among the commissioners, they determined that September 18, 2008, at 1:30 PM would be the scheduled date and time for the hearing. In addition to setting the hearing schedule, the Commission also considered and adopted recommendations regarding the hearing process itself. These recommendations likely addressed procedural matters and guidelines for how the de novo hearing would be conducted, though the specific details of these recommendations were not elaborated upon in the available materials. The agenda item was categorized as a discussion item, allowing commissioners to deliberate on the scheduling and procedural aspects before reaching their decision. The outcome was approval of both the proposed date and time as well as the hearing process recommendations. This scheduling decision represents an important administrative step in the Centerpoint matter, ensuring that all parties involved would have adequate notice of when the de novo hearing would take place and understanding of how the proceedings would be structured. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of minutes from May 8, 2008; June 10, 2008; and June 26, 2008 - **DP 2008-79** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Cardinal Hill Hospital development plan to September 11, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-28F** — withdrawn (7-0): Withdrawal of continued discussion for Lakeview Island, Unit 3 - **DP 2008-77** — postponed (7-0): Indefinite postponement of Michael Gentry Property development plan - **DP 2008-104** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Red Mile Square development plan to September 11, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-71P** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Hampton Springs preliminary plan to September 11, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Thomas Communications, Inc., Unit 1-C and 1-D to September 11, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-76F** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Bogie Estate, Lot 1 to September 11, 2008 - **DP 2008-88** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 to September 11, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-102C** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property to September 11, 2008 - **PLAN 2006-75P** — passed (8-0): Reapproval of Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B preliminary plan - **PLAN 2008-2P** — passed (8-0): Approval of Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9 preliminary plan - **PLAN 2008-44F** — passed (8-0): Approval of High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17 final plan - **DP 2008-80** — passed (8-0): Approval of Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7 development plan - **DP 2008-117** — passed (8-0): Approval of Berry Crest Subdivision, Lots 8 & 9 development plan - **DP 2008-75** — passed (8-0): Approval of East Hills Shopping Center, Lot 3A amended plan - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Set date and time for Centerpoint de novo hearing and adopt recommendations --- ## Full transcript Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. Tonight, tonight, won't we just get in line Tonight there will be no morning star. Tonight, tonight, I'll see my love tonight And for us stars will shine in the end. Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave It seems to me that I've tried long enough To prove to you my love is strong enough Just how upset can you get How hard to get can you get I'd love to get a small book in China All to myself alone Get you and keep you in arms evermore Leave all your lovers on the faraway shore Out on the bright end to the moon big and shiny Melting your heart out of stone I'd love to get you a small book in China All to myself alone I'd love to get you on a slow boat Not on a fast and slow boat You're not gonna take my heart You're not gonna break my heart I'm gonna make you mine You'll have to stand in line Get you and I'll keep you in my arms evermore Leave all your lovers on the shore They'd swim to China, to China and back Out on the bright end to the moon big and shiny Melting your heart out of stone Or is it made of steel You'll find it's very real Seems we're not going On a slow boat to China Well let's just say That we won't be there this June Cause who ever heard Of a Chinese honeymoon Cause who ever heard Of a Chinese honeymoon I'm gonna make you mine You'll have to stand in line Get you and I'll keep you in my arms evermore Leave all your lovers on the shore They'd swim to China, to China and back Out on the bright end to the moon big and shiny Melting your heart out of stone Or is it made of steel You'll find it's very real Seems we're not going On a slow boat to China Well let's just say That we won't be there this June © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon Good afternoon and I'd like to welcome everyone here to our subdivision meeting. We're going to take just a few minutes, if you'll please indulge us, to introduce two of our three past council members or commission members that have given so much to our commission. I'm going to ask the commission here to stand up and present. We've got some plaques. We've got some plaques. © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon Please stand up. Right up here. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Planning Commission, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Linda Godfrey and Lyle Aiton from the Planning Commission, whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Aiton for their valuable service to the commission from July 13, 2000, to June 30, 2008 for Ms. Godfrey and for the same time for Mr. Aiton. Having served on this commission, zoning committee and subdivision, as vice chairman, Ms. Gordon, and Mr. Aiton has served as commissioner of the subdivision committee. Whereas Ms. Godfrey and Mr. Aiton have been influential in the formation of two comprehensive plans, the Greenbrier Small Area Plan, the Corridors Plan, the Indian Hill Small Area Plan, the Newtown Pike Extension, the South End Park Urban Village Plan, the Residential Infill and Development Study, the Underutilized Property Survey, the Courthouse Area Design Overlay Zone, and the Cadentown Historic District, and the Greenbrier Neighborhood Character Design and Overlay Zone. Mr. Aiton has been influential in the formation of the two comprehensive plans, the Greenbrier Small Area Plan, the Indian Hill Small Area Plan, the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor, the South End Urban Village Plan, the Residential Infill and Redevelopment Study, the Underutilized Property Survey, the Courthouse Area Design Overlay Zone, and the Cadentown Historic District, and the Greenbrier Neighborhood Character Design Overlay Zone. And whereas Ms. Godfrey and Mr. Aiton have consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Fayette County as reflected in their decisions regarding land use and development, and whereas as members of this commission and the staff feel that the service and guidance contributed by Mrs. Godfrey and Mr. Aiton will be greatly missed by this body, and I can assure you that that's true. Now wherefore be it resolved, we the members of the commission, along with the staff, do hereby express our gratitude to Ms. Godfrey and to Mr. Aiton for their service to the commission, to the citizens of Lexington-Fayette County, and we, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, do hereby wish Ms. Godfrey and Mr. Aiton much happiness and continued success and ask that they continue to give valuable guidance to the members of this commission, and be it further resolved that this copy of the resolution be presented to Ms. Godfrey and Mr. Aiton as they also spread upon the minutes of the book of the body. And that's it. We are so moved. I'll give you both an opportunity to say something if you'd like to speak. Linda? I would just like to thank my colleagues on the planning commission, the staff that has been just tremendous, and to all of those who have brought their plans before this commission and their interest in developing and the maintenance of our community. It has really been a pleasure to serve. But I've enjoyed the opportunity to be able to serve the community, and now I'm looking forward to having some free reading time. Thank you. I'd just like to say that I've enjoyed being on this side of the bar, and I've been on both sides of the bar. I've been a consultant to the planning commission or to my clients, and being on the other side of the bar has given me a much broader perspective on planning. And one thing I'd like to comment on in that regard, I mean, I come from a long way back. I can remember the first planning session I had was over in the other courthouse on Walnut Street, it used to be Walnut Street, in the basement was when the planning commission had its first staff, first planning commission offices with one staff member, and I think a part-time secretary. That goes way back. I go way back, and I'm still here, but I've enjoyed planning the process and everything. I've taught planning in university. I have enjoyed being on both sides of the bar, as they say, and I've enjoyed particularly the development of understanding of planning in this community. I mean, we have people now who understand it better than I do, a lot better than I do, and it makes it a nice interface with when anything comes up that's community-wide concern in planning, to have that kind of knowledge base for a community. And the other thing I'd like to say is, besides the advancement in the understanding and knowledge of the community, we have a staff that is superb, and I've seen a staff from one man to this kind of staff, the mature, very professional staff that we have here that make you wouldn't believe the kind of reports that they are able to put out in reviewing cases and projects. It just makes it very comfortable and very satisfactory that I've been able to serve in whatever capacity that I have. Thank you. Thank you all, and we'll do our meeting. Thank you. Okay. We have minutes from the May 8th, 2008, June the 10th, 2008, June the 26th, 2008 to be considered at this time. Three. Mr. Chairman, I move that the minutes from the Planning Commission meetings of May 8th, 2008, June 12th, 2008, and June 26th, 2008 be approved. Second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a like sign. Passed. Are there any postponements or withdrawals at this time? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is John Carman. On page six, item B under development plan, Cardinal Hill Hospital, we are requesting a one-month postponement. All right. We requested a one-month proposal for the Cardinal Hill Hospital plan on page six. B. What's the date on that? The next subdivision meeting is September 11th. Okay. Okay. Are you ready for a motion? I'm ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement to the September 11th meeting for DP 2008-79. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page three, item C, plan 2008-28F, Lakeview Island, unit three of the landings, 2414 Lake Park Road. You may recall we had a discussion about this at your last meeting. It was location of a sewer line, and we suggested reconfiguring our lots so that we could get it on the property, which would eliminate the need for a waiver. We have done that. We have met with the staff, and they have tweaked our plan a little bit. But we think it's been determined that we do not need a waiver anymore and no further planning commission action is needed. This was our request for a continued discussion item, so for that reason I am withdrawing our request for a continued discussion item on this matter. Okay. Does everyone understand the motion? All right. We will now take up the process of a motion to withdraw the whatever. Continued discussion. Continuing discussion on plan 2008-28F, Lakeview Island, the landings. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move withdrawal of plan 2008-28-F. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Just to clarify, that was the continued discussion because the plan has already been approved, actually, hasn't it? So noted. Thank you. Got me a little nervous there. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you would turn in the agenda to page 6, item 3A under development plans, DP2008-77, Michael Gentry Property. At this time, we request an indefinite postponement. Okay. We have had a request for an indefinite postponement on DP2008-77, Michael Gentry Property at 3292 Richmond Road. Does the commission have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for indefinite postponement of DP2008-77, Michael Gentry Property. Second. All right. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Rosalyn Harris. This is Susan Lewis. We are residents of Providence Lane. We are referring to DP2008-80 on page 7, the Chevy Chase subdivision, unit 19, William T. Burke Property. We are asking for a one-month postponement because we've just become aware of some changes in the development plan that will be affecting us. Ms. Lewis will go into it in further detail, and we need time to consider those changes. What it shows is that they have moved the garage from one side of the back property line over to the property line and turned on the side, on our property, which will result in the building of the primary structure and the garage going all the way down our property side, on the one side that we face out with the loss of sunlight, ventilation, and any kind of a view that we could have had. And we just learned of the plan. It's not on the plan that was submitted. It's a change. Okay. We request to postpone DP2008-80, Chevy Chase subdivision, unit 19, located at 1136 Providence Lane. Does anybody else have any discussions? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Mr. William Burke, who is the owner of the property. Opposed to that, the plan that is before you is essentially the same plan that was acted upon by the Board of Adjustment three weeks ago. The garage is in essentially the same location. This plan does move it. It was six feet off the line. This moves it to two feet off the line. We can discuss that. Other than that, it's the same plan that was approved by the Board of Adjustment three weeks ago after full notice. And I think the same people were present at the meeting at that time. So this time we would oppose that. I think the time has run out on the ‑‑ this has been postponed a couple times already as well. And I think the time has run out on it, too. Staff can verify. Okay. Commissioner, what's your pleasure? Do you want to go ahead and postpone this or do you want to go ahead and hear the hearing today? I think we have to hear it. I would concur. Let's go ahead and hear the proposal during the time in which we would hear such things to hear the petitioners on both sides. Second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed by a like sign. Okay. We will do the hearing today. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Andy Holmes with Midwest Engineering. Item G, DP2008‑104, Red Mile Square. We'd like to have a one‑month postponement to the September 11th meeting. All right. There's been a request for a one‑month postponement, which would make that September 11th. For DP2008‑106, Red Mile Square, track D, parcel 3, at 1151 Unity Drive. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for a one‑month postponement of DP2008‑104 to the September 11th meeting. All right. There's been a motion and a second to postpone DP2008‑104. All in favor, please signify. If I may, did you ask if anyone in the audience had any comments as to the postponement? Is there anyone in the audience that has a comment or would like us not to postpone this? If not, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed by an aye sign. September 11th. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. I'm going to try to postpone several here for you. First page, first item. Plan 2008‑71P, Hampton Springs, request a one‑month postponement to the September 11th hearing. All right. There is a request for a one‑month postponement for plan 2008‑71P, Hampton Springs, located at 4574 Harrodsburg Road. Is there anyone else to speak in the audience for or against this? I mean, is that all right? We can do it? All right. Anybody else? All right. Mr. Chairman, for the record, could the gentleman approach the microphone and identify himself? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Keith Messenger. I reside at 2460 English Station Drive, and I'm representing Mr. and Mrs. J.L. and Wanda Hatter, who are the owners of English Station Development Company, of which this particular property came up about 11 years ago and are attempting to access a private access easement across the Hatter's property through English Station Drive to do it, and there was a court case at that time that was settled that reversed the commission's decision at that time, and I just wish to bring that information before the commission. I have given it to staff today. But I will be here September 11th. Okay. Do you all want to come up? Since it's September 11th, we'll have the hearing and let you do your opposition at that time. Okay. Thank you all. All right. Is there a motion to postpone Plan 2007-71P Hampton Springs? Mr. Chairman, move to postpone 2008-71P until September 11th. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. On Page 2, bottom of Page 2, top of Page 3, it's two file record plats. Both of these are the Thomas Communications. They are Plans 2008-24F and 2008-25F, Units 1C and 1D, respectively. Request a one-month postponement on these two plans to September 11th. All right. Request for a postponement to September 11th for Plan number 2008-24F, Thomas Communications, Unit 1C, Walnut Grove Estates, and for Plan number 2008-25F, Thomas Communications, Unit 1D, Walnut Grove Estates. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to question this? If not, I will entertain a motion that we postpone this until September 11th. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement until September 11th of Plan 2008-24F and Plan 2008-25F until our September 11th meeting. Second. All right. Everyone understand the motion? All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a like sign. All right. September 11th. On Page 4, Item E, this is Plan 2008-76F, Bogie Estate, Lot 1. Request a one-month postponement to the September 11th meeting. All right. There has been a request for a one-month postponement for Plan 2008-76, Bogie Estates, Lot 1, located at 5846 Old Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this? If not, the commission. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for a one-month postponement of Item 2008-76F, Bogie Estate. Second. All right. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a like sign. And on Page 7, Item D, it's DP 2008-88, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1. Also request a one-month postponement to September 11th. Okay. There has been a request for DP 2008-88, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1, located at 3100 Beaumont Center Circle. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to say anything? If not, I'll entertain a motion from the commission. Mr. Chair, I move for a one-month postponement until the September 11th meeting for DP 2008-88, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1A. Second. There has been a motion made and second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a like sign. One more. All right. This is under staff items. It's the minor subdivision plan, Plan 2008-102C, Guest Family Partnership. I request a one-month postponement to September 11th hearing. It's right under staff items. There has been a request for a one-month postponement to September 11th for Plan 2008-102C, Guest Family Partnerships, located at 40950 Childsburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience that has anything they'd like to say? If not, I'll entertain a motion from the commission. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of Plan 2008-102C, Guest Family Partnership. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a like sign. Thank you. At this time, my OJT, on-the-job training, is over, and I'm going to pass back the gavel to Randall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Day. I want to say thank you for filling in for me. The joys of travel, you just don't always catch the right flight when you need it. And I'm sorry I missed Mr. Ayton and Ms. Gottfried's presentation, but I did get a chance to speak with them in the corridor just a few minutes ago. Okay. At this time, are there any other postponements or withdrawals that the commission needs to consider at this time? Okay. Seeing none, I guess we will move next into our consent agenda, land subdivision items. We do have a consent agenda in front of us. On the TAM sheet, there appears to be a number of plans, and at this time I will turn it over to Mr. Salih to run through the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. Welcome. Thank you. Members of the commission, good afternoon. There are eight items that can appear on your consent agenda this afternoon. The first is a final subdivision plan recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. This item appears on page four. It's item F, plan 2008-104F, a final record plat amendment for Hollywood Terrace subdivision lot one and a portion of lot two and three. There are four items recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee under final subdivision plans. The first three of those items appear on page four and five. That would be item 4G, item 5H, page five item H, and page five item I. Those are three subdivision plats for portions of 2450 Georgetown Road, plan 2005-173F, plan 2005-174F, and plan 2005-175F, all different units of unit four of Belmont Farm. The next item appears on page five, item J, of your regular meeting agenda. This is a final subdivision plat, plan 2007-82F, for Sharky Property, unit three, the property located at Town Square Park. There are three final development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that can be on the consent agenda. The first appears on page seven, item E, DP 2008-102, Estes Property, lot one. This is for property at 3294 Richmond Road. The next item appears on page seven, item F of your regular agenda, DP 2008-103, final development plan for Kerr Inn of Lexington, also known as White and Curliss Property, track three, property located at 2770 Palumbo Drive. The final item on your consent agenda is also a final development plan. It appears on page eight, item H of your regular meeting agenda. This would be DP 2008-105, and a development plan for Ovington and Ragland, also known as Harold's Car Wash. This is for property at 2632 Richmond Road. Mr. Chairman, unless there are any requests from the commission or audience to remove plans from this agenda, these items can be considered on your consent agenda. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salley. You've heard the presentation of the consent agenda by Mr. Salley. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to hear any of these applications presented on the consent agenda? Okay, seeing none, commission, are there any plans on the consent agenda that you would like to see heard today? Okay, seeing none, at this time, my chair will entertain a motion for acceptance of the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Chairman, I move for acceptance of the consent agenda as Mr. Salley presented to us. Okay, we have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda as presented. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we'll move into our full hearing items, and we'll give the staff a moment to get set up for that. I've lost my place, I guess, in my agenda here, but perhaps Mr. Salley can direct me to the first one. I hope I have the right spot marked, Mr. Chairman. The bottom of page 3, plan 2008-44F. Okay. Hi, Matt. I apologize. I did not have the right location. It's on page 2 of your agenda, item B, plan 2006-75P. We'll have a short presentation on that plan. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Take a moment while staff sets up. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 2. It is plan 2006-75P, preliminary subdivision plan. It is located off Winchester Road in the Patchen Wilkes development. The Charleston Street, the drive that is the frontage, runs out and connects us to Winchester Road. Thank you. I'll get it out. It's close to the Crawford School at the back end of the property. We have other subdivision proposals in this subdivision in this area. Then we have the commercial development closer to the Winchester Road section, although I know it's difficult to see by the vicinity map. You can see that this is the residential area located towards the rear of the property. There are 143 single-family lots served by a street system. You can see here, along with an alley system to serve the rear of all these lots. This was a development that was presented to you and approved in a neo-traditional style. This plan is back before you for reapproval. You did reapprove it once before. You can see from your agenda that those were standard conditions. There is one, however, that goes with this. This, too, has been approved prior by this body, and that is the waiver request on blue that you see before you. The key to this waiver request and the reason for it was to be consistent with the neo-traditional design that was proposed for this development by the developer with the original integrated design that they had. It's for the size of these streets and for the turning radiuses. That is the key. It's to keep them small and keep them narrow. This, of course, was a well-discussed topic by staff during the course of the original submission and the review of this plan and subsequently with the waiver request as well. But that, again, is the intent. So you can see these connections in here. These are highlighted in red because it was, in fact, the area of concern that staff had were these turning radiuses for the provision of services. Again, that was discussed quite heavily and worked out with other members of the government. And you can see before you again on this handout that the waiver was recommended for approval. And, of course, we still recommend this waiver for approval. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I did have one question, I guess. So you're saying that fire and sanitation have accepted this request for modification? Yes, sir. And it was a topic of much discussion with those entities. Got you. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions? I've got one. This is in keeping with the rest of that development? Yes, sir. I mean, it's no tighter or no different than the rest of the development? It is consistent with the rest of the development, yes, sir. Mr. Penn, to answer your question, I'm not sure any other portions of Patch and Wilkes have received waivers with the exception of the area on the opposite end of the property where there were alleys created behind. I think there were some waivers associated with those alleys. But I'm not sure the street systems anywhere else in Patch and Wilkes have had similar waivers granted. I guess I was under the impression that that tight turn radius functioned as an alley. It does or does not? I would say they're similar. I would have to turn to the applicant's representative to verify that's their intent. Okay. I have a question on the alleys. Even though they're maintained by the Homeowners Association, are those going to be public roads or the alleys? Well, it is my understanding that this is a public street system but not the alleyways. Right. Yes, sir. The Homeowners Association, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Phelps. Tom, we approved this back in 2006 and again in 2007 with this waiver? Yes, ma'am. We did. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Petitioner. We're in agreement with the 14 conditions. We request approval. And, yes, the alleys are consistent. We've done Unit 1 is up near Winchester Road. I think all but two lots are served by an alley system. We did have some sort of waivers with those streets because some places you have a big green in the middle of it and the sidewalks varied with that right of way as well. In this case, it's set up to more as your new traditional, your Charleston look, so we're bringing the houses and everything more to the street frontage and allowing for the alley systems in the rear. Charleston, South Carolina, right? Yes. That's the plan. Charleston, West Virginia would have a different look. We don't have enough hills for that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Kaley? All right. It appears we have 14 conditions provided. We grant approval for reapproval for the waiver as well as reapproval of the plan. This is Plan 2006-75P. Is there anyone in the audience that's here that would like to speak to this application? Okay. Thank you. All right. Staff, do you have anything additional you want to add, Mr. Martin? Nothing? Mr. Kaley is correct. I do recall some waivers on the utility strips in the other section. Okay. All right. Okay. At this time, I'll ask the commission if they have any questions, comment, motion to make. Mr. Chairman, move for approval and reapproval of 2006-75P and also move reapproval of the waiver. Second. Okay. We have a motion for reapproval of Plan 2006-75P as well as granting the waiver on the blue sheet for 2006-75P. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Our next item is on page 3, I believe. Is that correct? Thank you. Good afternoon. We're going to turn to page 3, and at the bottom of page 3, you'll see the plan for 2008-44F, High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17. This is a final record plat for a piece of property located at 2932 Candlelight Way. The property is located between Old Mount Table Road between Takes Creek Road and Alumni Drive. The purpose of this is to subdivide a single lot that has a duplex on it going down the common wall. So we're trying to create two individual lots. There was some question. When the house was designed and built, there was just one single door that you would go into, and then there were doors inside this area that will allow you to go into each side of the duplex. We had questions and concerns about the fact that you only had one door, so they created a pedestrian easement, the sidewalk in the front that comes up and then goes into that, if you want to call it a lobby area, so that both people can get into their different units. If you want, we kind of revised a couple of the conditions that were requested. If you look at the pink sheet, there's 18 conditions. We were 17 was to discuss the maintenance of the pedestrian easement and then 18 to denote the firewall separation between the units. With this, the staff and the subdivision committee recommended approval with these 18 conditions located on the pink sheet. Thank you, Ms. Skalt. Any questions for Ms. Skalt at this time? Thank you. Okay. Is a petitioner present? Mr. Chairman and the members of the commission, my name is Don White, and I'm here on behalf of the petitioners, and I would just ask that you accept the staff's recommendation. Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. White at this time? Ms. Phillips? Mr. White, how wide is the sidewalk easement per property owner? I think it's three feet on either side or four feet. It's outside of the sidewalk. I went out and measured it down the sidewalk and then took it outside of the sidewalk. And I think initially we were talking about three feet on either side, and they may have taken it out to four. I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. White at this time? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Okay. You've heard staff's presentation. Petitioner is in agreement with staff's revised recommendation on the pink sheet. There are 18 conditions. Staff has recommended approval. At this time, the chair will entertain any questions, comments, and or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2008-44F with the, I guess, 16 conditions. Deleting number 16 and 17 as submitted. No, I believe. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 17 has been revised, and so it would be 17 conditions recommended by staff. Actually, there's 18. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, gosh. Just changed. Changes in 16, changes in 17, and 18. So we do have 18 conditions by staff. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve Plan 2008-44F with the 18 conditions on the pink sheet. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. White. Okay. It appears it's on page 6. Is that correct? Did I miss? Top of page 7, I believe, Mr. Chairman. Top of 7. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor. Good afternoon. The next item on your agenda appears on page 7. This is DP 2008-80, Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7. This is for property located at 1136 Providence Lane. The property is located between Duke Road and Romney Road. This is an R2 lot that was recently rezoned. The applicant is requesting to build a duplex with a garage to the rear. I'm going to kind of walk you through the three plans that we've seen. This was the original submission. It shows the garage in the back right corner, the two units, and the drive down this side. After that, this was submitted on, I believe, the 10th. The plan you see up here is the Board of Adjustment filing that was approved on July the 25th. The difference being you can see the garage in this corner, two enclosed carports, revisions to the building lines at 22 feet and 25 feet, six feet side yard and rear yard for this garage and carport, the addition of the easements as well as some additional easement information here that was not shown on the plan at this time. This morning, we received a revised plan that brought the plan closer to what the Board of Adjustment approved, moving the garage to this back left corner, but it closed the gap on the side yard and rear yard from six feet to two feet on the side and the rear. The remainder of the plan is as shown on the Board of Adjustment plan. That was approved on the 25th. The subdivision committee had previously recommended postponement subject to nine conditions. We have on your yellow sheet the revised conditions for approval, noting the addition of four additional conditions, and it would also direct you to the white land use restriction sheet we gave you, which also denotes some of the requirements that the Board of Adjustment placed on their approval. The additional conditions are to document the compliance with 15-6A regarding the size of the accessory structures. It's a bit unclear, and we need it denoted and documented as to whether the new structure shown back there with the enclosed carports meets that portion of the ordinance. Condition number 11 is to identify the building line at 22 feet from right of way per the Board of Adjustment approval of their dimensional variance. The 12th is to denote the conditions of approval and date the Board of Adjustment approval on the plan. It's not on the plan. That is, as you see on the land use restriction, one of the conditions for approval. Number 13 is to relocate the garage and carports to the six-foot setback from the property line per the site plan approval from the Board of Adjustment. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you guys might have. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. So I take it that when subdivision committee recommended postponement, the utility pole landscape buffer and the required notice was addressed. The issue with the utilities, we had no easement information, and there was still some debate about whether or not there was going to be guy wires in the location of where the drive was shown. They've taken care of that information, as far as I'm concerned, from the Board of Adjustment. And I'll have to let, I believe, Mr. Murphy to tell you if the notice requirement has been met for those neighbors. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any other questions for Mr. Taylor at this time? Mr. Penn. Does the plan show the 22-foot right-of-way that the Board of Adjustment approved? It shows the 22-foot setback. Setback, I'm sorry. From this building. Correct. The plan shows that? Correct. It shows 22 there, and it is 25 there. They have an incorrectly noted 15-foot building line that is per the zone of 30-foot building line, which they varied through the Board of Adjustment to the 22 and the 25. Ms. Phillips. That side yard setback, the Board of Adjustment approved 6-foot side yard for the conjoined carport garage, and now the plan shows 2-foot? That's correct. The note of the condition says that the property will be developed in accordance with the submitted side plan, so we take that to mean the side yard requirements. There are the setbacks for the garage as well. What is the required, the district's setback requirement? Article 15-6 deals with location, height, and size of accessory buildings. It's a foot and a half for garages is what's required for accessory structures. Wow. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Any other questions for Mr. Taylor at this time? Okay. Thank you. Petitioner. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I represent William Burke, who is the owner of the property. Mr. Burke is here with me today in the fourth row, along with Doug Walton, who will be actually building the property who is next to him. Chaz Hyatt, a planner, is with me, and Mike Robbins is here, who is Foster Rowland, our designer. Just wanted to give you a little background on this. You had heard this as a zone change some months ago from R1C to R2. You know, we had to do R2 because we couldn't attach two townhouse units. We had to attach three and went through all that. The council did approve this unanimously a month or two ago before they went on break. We were aware all along we'd have to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance on the front yard because R2 has a 30-foot setback. R1T has a 10-foot setback. I've got a version of that we used at the Board of Adjustment, if I could put it on the overhead here. What we ended up doing was we had asked for 15, and that 15-foot building line is not what we got. We got 22 feet at the Board of Adjustment. But we had shown the ones next to us, the unit on the far left has 15.7, and that steps back to 18.6. And then with our plan, we've stepped this one further back to 22. And then the right one here goes to 25. And then there's a 30-foot building line on the R1C property, although we mentioned that all houses that have been sold out there have been converted into townhouses in the past. So we do step this down along there instead of what we had originally asked for, which was to go back to their setbacks here. We have pulled it back. Now, the Board of Adjustment, at the Board of Adjustment, we showed a, this is the plan we submitted to the Board of Adjustment. And I think there will be an issue this afternoon about the garage carport setbacks and everything. We showed at the Board we'd have six feet. This was shown at six feet, same as the house, and six feet here. And what we've submitted to you right now shows two feet here and two feet here on the property line. Let me show you a photograph here. We're going to be doing on this property similar townhome units to what's out there already, two-story brick. There's 11 townhome units along this stretch of Providence Lane. There's seven of them front Providence, and they're bisected by Duke Road there. And then four go down Duke Road. We're going to do similar to these. These are the ones right next door to us. The ones on the other side of Duke have front-entry garages in the townhomes. We're not going to do front-entry garages. We're going to do like these are. And the ones going down Duke Road are similar to this as well. And there's an aerial photograph of here. This is black and white. I don't know if the staff, if you all still have that color photograph or not. This is a black and white copy of a color photograph. And if you can raise the contrast on that just a little bit because it shows the way you can see the ‑‑ this is the house which was torn down. This is our property right here on Providence. These are the two townhomes next to us right here. And, again, we're going to be stepped back and then stepped back going through here. And then this is the ‑‑ I guess there's a patio or deck on the Lewis house. And back here is the garage. You can see it's right near our property line, the existing garage. Our garage would be sitting here as well against their garage. It may extend up a little further than theirs is. But what we ‑‑ I was talking with Mr. Burke and I were talking in the hallway before the meeting. What we would propose to do is to ‑‑ we had pulled this back from going back to the first one, the Board of Adjustment one, if you all could. The first exhibit that I had. Yeah. There we go in the brightness. Thank you. So the neighboring garage is back in this corner as well. What we can do is we show two feet here and two feet here. We pulled it back because that would give more view through there. So what we propose is we keep it at two feet where we're showing right here. Excuse me. Right here where we're showing two feet along this back property line. But go ahead and observe the six foot setback along the neighbor's property line here. That would maximize the view and the space for the neighbor over here. If we move this, pull this back to six feet where we had it at the Board of Adjustment. But if we pull it down to the two here toward the back, that will give more view shed and more openness through here on that. So that's what we would propose to modify what we have to pull our garage back to six feet from the side line and leave it at two feet from the rear line. As you all know, under the ordinance, we're entitled to one and a half feet along both side lines. But this would be six and two on the bottom here on that. Now, the question would be on the original development plan, we had showed it in the back here. This is the one. This is based upon our preliminary subdivision plan. KU has asked for an easement in this corner, 15 by 15. There's apparently a transformer on that pole right there, a big transformer. They want a 15 by 15 foot easement. We cannot put the garage here. We cannot fit this garage in the location along the back here, so that's why we rotated it this way. It also makes it a little easier movement in and out, so everybody's encouraged to come out facing Providence, not backing onto Providence. So it's a safer arrangement as well on there. There was a little discussion about utilities. There is a utility line. line overhead going along our east property line here. And we've had various discussions. There's been a lot of confusion about that arc. Probably we'll do whatever KU tells us, obviously, on that through the building permit process. Our desire probably would be to leave the existing line exactly where it is and observe all the electrical codes that we have to do that. Barring that, there's been some discussion about burying the lines or putting the lines higher. That will have to be resolved at the building permit when everybody sees exactly where the house will be in relation to the lines. And we have to observe KU's electrical code on that. There's no way around that. Obviously, we'd prefer to leave things just the way they are out there on the electrical line. So that's where we are on the electrical line. We, again, we did do the notification of zone change. We were required to notify adjoining neighbors. As you may recall, in June we postponed that because we had not given 14 days' notice. We did that, but it wasn't 14 days before the June meeting, so we postponed it to July and got postponed again. Everybody's here. Everybody was at the Board of Adjustment on that. So that's where we're at on it. And, again, when you did the zone change, we pointed out the nature of Chevy Chase and the nature that all these houses have been converted to these townhome units, and we want to do something just right in keeping with what's out there. These have been very well accepted in Chevy Chase, fit in very nicely. Alan Foster, who heads Foster Rowland, actually built the eight units, the four next to us and the four going down Providence Lane. He built those, and so he's doing the layout on these for Mr. Burke to be extremely similar to the ones that are already there. We're very pleased with the design and pleased with the process that has gone on so far. So, again, we feel with the modification we'll be pulling this back from the neighbor's line. We'll be giving them visibility through there, and we do comply with all setback requirements and all the requirements of the zoning ordinance on this. So we hope very much that you'll vote in favor of it, and we'd like to respond to any questions that may come up. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Cravens. What is an enclosed carport? Is that a garage without a door? Well, there's no door on it. I don't know if it will be enclosed on the other sides or not. Mr. Walton may be able to tell me on that or if we've decided. There won't be a door on the front. I don't know what kind of walls we'll have on the sides, and I'm not sure that's been decided yet, has it? He's nodding his head no. It has walls on the side or it doesn't? Does it have walls all the way around it or is it just? Mr. Walton, can you come forward, please? Thank you, sir. I'm Doug Walton with Mr. Burke. The carport, probably the back of it will be brick and the side will be open to the patio. It will be. The same way on the bottom of it? Yes. It will be brick all the way across the back. It will be there. And then the side will be open to the patio right there with the post holding it there. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Walton. Ms. Phillips, do you have a question? On the Board of Adjustment plan as well as on the leftmost plan, I see there are two trees indicated. Will those trees remain intact? And I wondered if they're required to be maintained. We're required to show existing trees and we also have to do the tree canopy. I'm not sure we're going to be able to maintain those. Those are existing. Excuse me. These two you're talking about? Yes, sir. Here and here. I'm not sure if we'll be able to maintain these two or not. I'm not sure. I don't remember the language that I had on that. Yeah. My other question was this area is being proposed, being studied for an ND1 overlay, and this property would fall within the boundaries of that overlay district. And I don't know if you would know this, Mr. Murphy, or staff, what the side and rear setbacks will be once that overlay comes on board. And would this construction comply? I'm not sure whether the construction would comply because we're looking at a site plan versus, say, elevation drawings. I'm not aware that there are any yard requirements proposed for change in the ND1 overlay other than to the rear yard, and that is a provision that would apply to the principal structure. There are restrictions proposed to the garages. I'm not sure if this garage would meet the 700-foot limit under that or not. It would be very close. I would point out that the overlay requires rear parking as we are proposing here, and I think we're complying with most all the requirements there. And, of course, those have not been enacted yet. I mean, they're not binding, not enforceable at this point. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Okay. I believe we do have someone that wanted to speak to this. Did I? I guess we'll take it for those that are willing to speak in favor of this first and then those that are in opposition. So it doesn't appear there's anyone in favor of this proposal. We will take those wishing to speak in opposition. I'm Susan Chestnut-Lewis at 1134 Providence Lane, and we do welcome the addition of the townhouses. We think it will be a good plan. I know when they were changing with the BOA, changing their setback, they wanted 15 feet and got the 22 feet. But what they were talking about was that they felt that the townhouses should conform to the townhouses that are adjoining and already there. And in agreement and support of that, the garage, all the garages in the adjoining townhomes are set back at the rear property line like they had it here. And so all the townhouses have the garages at the back of the property line placed in that way. And I know that there's an easement here, but they can just move the garage over here and put the other parking places there. None of the other townhomes have parking. So they can just leave parking like they had it here. That's what we have. We have one car garage, and then there's like an asphalt section where you can park a second car. So it's not like we can post a garage and not like we can post a car for it. But the way that that is, my house is... If you could take the microphone, thank you. My house is right here, and we have one open side that goes right down here along this way. And I have one window that's like right there. So if they do the garage set that way with enclosed in the back carports, that's just going to be like one big, long, tall brick building all the way down. And if they turn the garages like everybody else has them, we've got that sort of like open feeling in the back. Like you can look all the way down to the end of Duke, and you can look back that way too. And I actually think the people who move in here would prefer it that way too. I know I would. I'd rather have the air circulation and see something besides a brick wall. And they would have the same view too. They would be looking into our area, and we'd be looking in that way. And I just think that would be nicer and healthier and get more sunlight and more air and more view. So that's my only request would be that they please just go back to this. And if they have to, like because of the easement, just put the garage part here. And we all have no trouble backing out. There's plenty of room to back your car out and then pull out. I do it every day, so it isn't hard to do. But anyway, so we would just ask that they, as they wanted to conform with their setback with the other homes, that they also conform in the back too and follow that conformity. Thank you. I just wanted to support Susan Lewis in that and ask for a postponement in that regard. I was at the Board of Adjustment meeting on July 25th, and there was no discussion of this change. We talked about the change from a 15 to a 22-foot setback. Reflected even in the plan that I had up until last week, there was no reflection of this change in the placement of the garage. So we haven't even had a chance to consider, you know, to look at that. And what I understand just from the language itself is that the plan is to match the plan that is submitted to the Planning Commission. The exact wording of the approval states that the property shall be developed in accordance with the submitted development plan, site dated 7-2508, and that has not been the case. So we feel that we just need more time for these considerations. And I also, on the other side, on the 1140 Providence side, would appreciate more clarification on the part either of the engineer or the attorney about what is happening with the utilities. There's just a lot of ambiguity around that. And up until, actually up until this morning, there were people coming to our home from Kentucky Utilities and saying that they had been sent by, you know, the developer and, you know, with no clear idea of what that was all about. So I really would like some clarification about that. Thank you. Thank you. The person that you just heard from is Mrs. Butler that lives over on the right-hand side. My name is Jeff Duncan. I live at 423 Cochran Road. I am the president of Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association. I was asked to speak here due to the fact, and the neighbors on either side and the gentleman, Mr. Burke, and all have been working on this together. It's just that here recently because of the garages being placed where they are, they were not aware of that. That was not brought up at the last BOA meeting. So this is all a surprise to them. Also, it was just now indicated that the trees on these plans are on Mr. Burke's property. Actually, I do not believe they are. I think they're actually shown inaccurate. And I think both neighbors want to keep their trees. So we would like to keep, and as you know, we're working on this ND1, but we'd like to keep some uniformity in our neighborhood. And I think it would behoove us all to, and I'm not big on postponements, but work this out on this garage so that there is some kind of uniformity all the way. Because we don't know that Mrs. Butler might, Mr. and Mr. Butler might move and that be developed also as a townhouse. If you approve this now, that does set precedence, which kind of throws things into a little bit of a squirrely type of situation. So it may be better to look at this a little bit more and see what you all think. Appreciate your time. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Okay. Is there any other comment from the audience with regards to this? I have to speak to this. Mike Robbins out here. Excuse me, Mr. Robbins. Mr. Robbins. Mr. Robbins. Mr. Robbins. Mr. Robbins. Excuse me, sir. Are you speaking in opposition of this? I'm not speaking in opposition. I need to respond to what my friend Jeff Duncan just said. Okay. Can we work that with the petitioner? I mean, Mr. Murphy, can we? I'm trying to keep this consistent with in favor as well as opposed, and we need to keep it in that context. So, all right. Anyone else want to speak in opposition to this? Okay. Seeing none, we have rebuttal from petitioner. What Mike wants to say is that he stands behind the accuracy of their survey, and they have done ground survey work and have located the trees, as they've indicated on that plot, trees planted as on Burke's property. I know there's been issues back and forth and arguments about where fences are and that sort of thing. It appears clear that one of the butler's fences is actually on our property, a few inches. The tree is on our property. Everybody has been making claims one way or the other. We are the ones who have done the survey and paid to do the survey and located where these things are, and the trees, Mike and Mr. Burke, and we stand behind the survey, which they have done there on the site, and there has been no survey work which would contest that. I want to also give you a little information about the garage. If you could show the top photograph in that set of two that I gave you. You can see this is our property. This was a few months ago for the zone change, but you can see the garage on the Lewis property next to us. You can see their driveway coming down and their garage, which is very close to our property line. It's the one with the basketball goal on it there. The property line goes right up the side there, and I'm going to show you the development plan for the Lewis property, if I can make sure I get the right one here. Yeah. This is the approved development plan for the property next door to us. I think it was, I can't remember the year, 1980 sometime, but it is a signed approved development plan for the property next door to us, and you can see this is the location of the garage on that property. Now, I was scaling this off during the discussion. This point to here is seven feet. You can see they've got a detention basin showing surrounding their garage. I'm not sure if that's actually there or not, but this dimension is seven feet. Now, the dimension from the back of the property line to the front of the garage is 30 feet as I scale it off. So seven feet there, 30 feet there. Now, if we can go back to ours, which we filed today. Now, as I mentioned to you, compared to seven feet on that side, very comparable. Our measurement from the back of the property line up to here, the garage wall is about 32 feet compared to their 30 feet. So the bulk and mass and location of our garage. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's almost identical to the garage next door. Now, we do add another 10 feet with this carport here with the wall. Now, I was also talking to Mr. Walton during the break about that, and he had told you that this would be a brick wall here and open here. Now, we were doing that because we thought it would be more attractive to have the brick wall, especially since their garage comes up right to there. But we can do that. He said he could do that open if that would be better because that would give him more view. Now, regardless of whether the garage is oriented this way or this way, it's going to be about the same mass. And regardless, you're going to be able to park a car in here, whichever way it is. Having the garage this way removes the visibility of the activity of the cars coming in and parking in the garage from the property next to us. If we have it located this way, all the maneuvering and the car opening and that stuff would be much more visible to the property over here. I just don't see a difference with the balking and the mass, especially since their garage is right here. Their driveway comes right down our property line right here. We probably have more activity from their cars than they have from our cars here. But this does remove the activity of our cars from them, and so we can leave that open. There's an open wall, so there's more light and visibility. We're doing the brick because we thought it would be better on here. Probably open will be cheaper for my folks to do anyway. So we can leave that open. Again, move this six feet away. Keep it open. Keep that open. Have brick here. And the balking and the mass is just about the same. So I think we're entitled to have some design of our own on this. It's very little on this. It's going to be like the next one, just the way we tilt the garage. And given the fact we have this easement right here and just can't fit it over on that side there. Okay. Is that all your rebuttal, Mr. Murphy? Yeah. The garages are only visible to the neighbors, and we think we've done this the least visible way to the Lewises by doing it this way. And I think that's all I have. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We have citizen rebuttal at this time. You can come forward, Ms. Butler. I just had two quick points, and I appreciate the time. One is irrespective of what the changes are, it's the fact procedurally that we were not made aware of these changes in time to really consider them. And by the council's or the commission's own kind of rules, this is something that we needed to know about or to be aware of. The second thing in terms of the trees, we have never challenged the boundaries. And I know this isn't a time or the context in which you talk about the boundaries, but we've never disputed the Allen Foster boundaries at all. I'm just asking that the developer actually respect his surveyor's own boundaries himself. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Butler. Staff, you have rebuttal at this time. To clarify for Ms. Phillips, she'd asked about the size of the garage. The portion that is fully enclosed is just under 400 square feet at 18 by 21 roughly, not including the two sides, which don't count towards the building areas, seeing as how they're not fully enclosed. Thank you. Could you point that out, what you just said, Mr. Taylor, on the site plan, just so we're all clear? This area scales off at 18 by 21, 21 by 18. That comes out to roughly 378 square feet. It doesn't count these two areas for the enclosed carports, because they're not fully enclosed. It's not a buildable area. Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time, we will close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to the commission for any comments. We have a revised staff recommendation. We also have, I guess, the conditions as listed in the Board of Adjustment that identifies the 22-foot setback. On the yellow sheet, we have revised recommendations that now staff recommends approval with 13 conditions. Subdivision committee had recommended postponement with three items to be addressed. It appears that what was presented today, those items had been responded to. So at this time, the chair will turn it over to commission for any comments and or motion. Mr. Chairman, you know, I would agree with Mr. Murphy on the way the garage is turned. It blocks the views of the cars and all the activity. It gives them a nicer barrier to the unit next door and also from the units inside. When you look out, being that those are two-story, that would help block the view of the cars from the other units. So with that, I'd like to move approval of DP2008-80 with the six-foot side yard and the two-foot rear yard. Based on the revised yellow sheet here? Yes. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, our next item on the agenda appears to be the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit. We have a white memo here dated August 14th, release and call of bonds. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we release and call the bonds. Second. We have a motion and a second for the release and call of bonds. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Sally, I'm sorry. I think I went out of order. I didn't see anything else on the agenda. Chairman, this is your meeting. That's not a problem at all. There is one subdivision item remaining on the bottom of page 8. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Not a problem. Thank you. There is an addendum, by the way, I will add that we'll have to address as well. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page 8 at the bottom, item I is a final development plan, 2008-117. It is the Berrycrest subdivision, lots 8 and 9. This project is located out on Pasadena Drive on the north side. In this direction on this plan is Nicholasville Road. To this direction is Regency Road. It is across approximately from the Payne Clinic parking lot in that large detention basin known locally as the Pasadena Pond. And it's full of goldfish and geese. But the development plan that you see before you is for an office building, a medical office building. They are proposing a three-story building of approximately 18,000 square feet with associated parking, as you can see here. They are also requesting two access points onto Pasadena Drive. They are 24 feet in width, spaced here and here. This is a revised plan, which also shows a future access point up here on the northern end, the northeast corner of the parking lot. And we will address that very specifically with the waiver request that accompanies this plan. Thank you. When this plan was reviewed, staff – I can't hear – there we go. There we go. I know it's normally not a problem to hear me, but when I couldn't hear myself, I thought, uh-oh. But, again, when this plan was submitted, there was tremendous discussion with staff and the applicant about these access points, their impact on Pasadena, but very importantly, about this point here. Now, that point is integral to a plan that the city has supported – the staff, planning staff, I should say – has supported for quite some time to try to provide alternative access along the north side of these adjoining properties from Huguenard through the backs of these properties towards Regency Drive. And I want to point that out to you up on the photograph that is on. Here is the subject property. Here is the subject property here. Here we have Huguenard Drive, Pasadena, Regency Road with its intersection with Pasadena. Again, here's the large detention basin. The applicant is asking for access approximately here and here. Staff's concern is there's now a daycare developed on this corner. They provided us with a point that would allow continuation of access through here. The applicant, who has also agreed by his revised submission to provide us with the same point of contact here for the connection, gives us the opportunity to continue this. We're anticipating the same opportunity on this property as the childcare center is asking to expand. That will leave us with one intervening property to allow this alternative system to be created. Staff has been very concerned about this for years because of the traffic on Pasadena and the impact that these new developments will have on Pasadena, obviously having been residential at one time and now developing as professional and commercial properties. It was during the course of the review that the need for the waiver became apparent. And, well, I guess I better return to that photograph. I think that will be simplest. The access point here, which you can see here on your plan, is a distance from this intersection to here is 200 plus feet. It does not meet the access standard dictated by our subdivision regs, in this case of 404 feet. So they're requesting approximately a waiver of approximately half that distance, a little less than that actually. Interesting enough, if you go from Huguenard, it just about meets the accessing standards. And if you were to go from Regency to this point, it just about meets. But this, of course, is your primary intersection, Regency and Pasadena, which carry a tremendous amount of traffic. So this is the primary intersection we measured in order to evaluate the waiver request. In response to our concerns, the applicant, as I said, gave us a revised plan. They provided us with the stub at the northeast corner of their property or an access point, a future access point. The circulation of the traffic on their site is going to be one way. This is going to be enter and this is going to be exit only access points. They have furthermore agreed to our concern about the impact on Pasadena. And they have agreed, again, and in your waiver report you'll see the condition that this will be denoted as a temporary access point to be removed at such time that this becomes available to them. Now, obviously, they don't control the development of the adjoining property. So that's the difficult part for them and that constitutes their hardship request. Staff has reviewed this. And, again, you do have a waiver request. It's tan. You have two of them. This is, again, Berrycrest. You have two of the same color, the Berrycrest. And staff is recommending approval both of this plan and the waiver request. And I will say that the subdivision committee recommended approval of the plan as well. Are there any questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Fenn. On the two, one in and one out on the Pasadena, are they right in and right out only? Are they? They will be no, sir. They won't be right in, right out only. They are, however, just one way in and one way out. But the problem with only is the lack of a median. Right. And it's very difficult, then, to control that movement. Tom, I have a question. By granting those two access points, does that outweigh not meeting the access requirements from Regency? I'm trying to weigh which one is more important. Yes, sir. Again, let me go to the photograph. Mr. Holmes, we, in discussions with traffic, determined that this was your primary intersection. Therefore, we measured from that right-of-way point back to their access points. This one meets at this end of the property. Just barely, but it meets. So this one became the one that did require the waiver. And staff, along with traffic, felt like this was the key because of the spacing from the Regency Road intersection. And I will add further, you see these offsets across the street? Obviously, there will be conflict with that. So when it goes away, that will reduce any potential conflict there as well. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I did have one question on what means would you control folks turning from Pasadena into that exit only? Is that signage or I guess going back to Mr. Penn's comment? We've not really discussed that particular issue at length. I would think signage would be the appropriate way, along with painting on the pavement particularly. That's the most common usage, that it would be signed indicating that circulation correctly. And I think that would be, of course, subject to development plan approval and enforcement. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Petitioner. Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. We're in agreement with Tom's presentation. Just for clarification, I want to the enter only when the exit is closed will be two-way. So that would be our primary access point. And then in the rear would be kind of a relief exit entrance and access to Huguenard. So I just want to make that clarification. Yeah, I anticipate painting on the entrance and, you know, enter only and exit only kind of signage at both entrances or respectively at each. Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Any questions for Mr. Barrett? Tony, when you look at that plan, you have an access on the back on the right side of the plan as I look at it. What's that on the left over there? The same green spot on the left corner. It's just landscaping. There's a considerable grade difference across our property. And we'll be able to make the access to Huguenard here, but it will be quite an embankment. Okay. That goes up, yeah. Okay. Depending on which side of the hill you're on. I have a question also. I guess that access where there with the one across the street, whether it be conflict, is there any way to line your access up with that to alleviate or minimize that conflict? They really just aren't lining up well with our property lines, and they're so close together that I don't know that it really has an impact. So you're saying they're pretty close together in terms of lining up? Well, between the two of them, they're close together. They're 36 feet apart. And I'm just ‑‑ I can't really get much closer than I am to them without ‑‑ I guess what I'm saying is that if there's an access across the road to that, A conflict, yeah. How do we line those two up to at least reduce that conflict? Especially if there's two trying to make left turns. I just can't get over to them. I'm kind of restricted as to the layout of my parking lot. And in order to skew over to them, I lose a lot of efficiency. That's the one it comes down to. They're just parking spaces apart from each other. So if I'm aligning with the other one, I'm conflicting with the other one. So I don't know that it's ‑‑ I'm kind of in the middle of them. That may be the best because you can see both lanes that way. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Barrett? Thank you. I see some folks in the audience. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? Okay. Thank you. Any additional comment? Tony? No. Mr. Martin, do you have anything you'd like to add? Just perhaps to help clarify on the agenda recommendations, to help with any motion, if you should choose to approve this waiver, that would take care of, I believe, number 10 on your agenda. I would, however, like for number 9 to remain because we have made it a practice on every plan in this area to be sure that we're very clear about denoting the need for that alternative system and our desire to facilitate its creation. So we like to keep wording on the plan to that effect. So you're saying change 10 provided we grant the waiver? Yeah, I believe the granting of your waiver does resolve the Pasadena access. All right. Noted as such. Okay. Plan DP-2008-117, Barry Crest. We have 10 conditions changing number 9 to say denote the need for access to adjacent properties, and then number 10, provided commission grants the waiver to the land subdivision regulations, and as noted on the staff report on the TAN sheet, staff has recommended approval, and that recommendation is made subject to the following additional requirement, that they denote on the plan that the exit-only access point is temporary and will be closed at such time the alternate access is constructed and available for use by subject property. With that, we will close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to the commission for any comments and or motion. Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, and I'm going to move that we approve the plan. At our subdivision meetings, of course, our concerns were the two accesses onto Pasadena, and with the fact that now if we can tie in the back and we can reduce that down to one, I think that things move pretty quick, and if that happens, it should take care of the concerns we had as far as our concerns at the meeting. With that, I would move that we approve plan number DP-2008-117, Barry Crest subdivision, 235-249 Pasadena Drive. Deleting number 10? Deleting number 10 or changing. Are you granting the waiver? Granting the waiver, yes. Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve changing number 9 to denote and number 10 to provide granting of the waiver, which, Mr. Day, your motion did say grant the waiver, correct? Yes. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Well, let's see. I think we have two commissioners. Well, we've already covered one commission item. We have one other commission item that may require some discussion, so we probably should take a quick five-minute break. Okay. Oh, my goodness. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. We have today an addendum, a white sheet that was handed out. This is a land subdivision item. It's a preliminary plan, plan 2008-2P, Calumet Terrace subdivision. It's been brought back to you today for a continuing discussion for a waiver request. This plan, and you may recall it because you have seen a record plan on this before, that was subject to a waiver request as well. We're out here on Biley Road. Purcell's Road is down here. We're in that bit of that straight stretch as we come up through here. This is the church property, I believe, that was here. And they sold this property to this church. This is the Catholic church, by the way, that owned this property. The plat that you originally saw was to create this lot so it could be transferred from this property owner. The church needed to do that in order to take title and secure financing. And it was at that time that same road that comes in at the back was subject of a waiver granted by this body for substantial completion. They did not have to build this at the time. One of the requirements was that they bring us back a preliminary subdivision plan and show the construction of this public improvement as required. What you see here in terms of information is more in the line of a development plan, which they did take to the Board of Adjustment for approval, again, as it's a conditional use in the residential zone. They've brought this back to you today because during the course of working with the Board of Adjustment, working with some neighbors, they have modified the cul-de-sac. Now, when the plan is approved, of course, we approve it subject to conditions, and those conditions include the subdivision regulations. So a standard hammerhead cul-de-sac was what was initially envisioned. It was during this process and working with the Board of Adjustment that the applicant, who did as well work very closely with solid waste and fire and traffic, come up with this modification. The modification works well for the church, and in addition, it recognizes the neighbor in a body of water, a spring-fed pond that he's got, and they have detention as well that could be impacted by a standard hammerhead cul-de-sac. They worked this out and did not realize at the time that, because they had submitted it to the Board, that this was not a standard cul-de-sac and did require a waiver. The staff has worked with them. They did submit the waiver request, which my copy is white. I believe you'll find yours is a tan copy. Yes, we came out of the copier that way. Some were white. We made sure you all got tan copies, similar to the previous one we handed out. But it should say Calumet Terrace at the top. You will find, upon reviewing that, that staff has recommended approval of the waiver. We do have one condition. It is consistent with the concern that was expressed at the Board of Adjustment. There is a natural area, heavily treed, and we're asking the applicant to do absolutely everything they can to minimize any impact on this area and the construction of this cul-de-sac. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Warren. I did have one question. Since we have a condition of this wooded natural area, how is that mapped on this plan? Is there a mapping of that? Unfortunately, it's not well shown on this plan. I think the Board of Adjustment plan showed it a whole lot better, which I don't have with me. But it is all in this area. It's heavily wooded. There is going to be some impact from the construction, and that's why we are asking that they be required to minimize the impact on that area. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Petitioner. John Hill, CMW Architects Engineers. Honestly, Tom said it all. I don't think you all can see this fence right here, but there was a fence that was kind of constructed on the property eons ago. It's like a farm fence. And in the field, it's been determined by Jim Redman, Tim Query, us, and what have you, that we absolutely can't do anything inside this fence with respect to removing any trees except for a drainage way that we're having to cut down through there. There are tree stands around this area. The intent is to keep everything within reason that we can, but we can't touch anything inside this fence. So to answer your question, Randall, if you can see this fence line, that was the demarcation line for that sensitive area from then on. We had to recognize that. But, again, Tom said it well, and we would ask for approval. Okay. Thank you, Brian. Any questions for Mr. Hill? You have Plan 2008-2P, Calumet Terrace. We have 17 conditions as indicated. We also have granting of this waiver. Staff has recommended approval of the requested waiver subject to maintaining the wooded natural area. And I guess I want to ask Tom, Condition 17, that addresses the waiver, correct? Or do we need to add a Condition 18 provided we grant the waiver? The condition is associated with the waiver request, the new condition. So with your approval of the waiver, you're imposing that condition. That condition. Okay. Great. All right. I see some folks in the audience, but I'm assuming they don't want maybe the parents to talk about something else. Okay. All right. Chairman, as to your earlier question, we do have the Board of Adjustment exhibit if you'd like to see the tree information. Sure. I think if we could see that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sully. Any questions? That brings up a question. Where it shows the detention basin, do you drain that out into where the wooded area is? Is the detention basin going to drain that way? Does that impact the pond on the other side of the guardrail? I'll give you a quick little history. Actually this is kind of an earlier Board of Adjustment plan and then we made some modifications and had to go back to the Board of Adjustment. But it's basically the same concept. This particular plan showed the outflow missing the adjoining pond because we were led to believe by the adjacent landowner that they didn't want the water going through their pond. Then they got concerned that there wouldn't be enough inflow into the pond to keep it viable. So we had a meeting of the mines one day in the field and walked it and got an agreement and actually a request on his part to reroute it and have the water go to this pond. So when we released it, then we went the extra mile, if you will, to sort of do the bio-swells and slow it down and we've got wetland vegetation and you name it. And that's what I was referring to. The only disturbance through this tree line will be that swath we have to cut through there. Thank you. a lot because as a farmer who has ponds and lakes, I can tell you that it doesn't take much to change the composition of that lake for or against either one. So if he's aware of that and working with it, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Any other questions for Mr. Hill? Okay. Staff, do you have anything else to add? Thank you for the Board of Adjustment exhibit. That was very helpful. Okay. At this time, I'll close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to the Commission for a comment, discussion, motion. Are you ready for a motion? Motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of Plan 2008-2P with the 17 conditions and granting the waiver request. Okay. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve Plan 2008-2P and granting the waiver. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I apologize to the staff earlier for overlooking the addendum. Now, I believe I'm back on track with the agenda here. We're at commission items and I believe staff has item B of commission items that they want to address. Mr. Chairman, I think you are directly on track, but if you don't mind, I think if we could take item B under staff items, there's one more plan-related matter before we get to the matter relating to the courthouse area appeal. All right. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that, Mr. Phelps. We'll take your next plan next. All right. This last item appears on page 9. It's DP 2008-75, East Hills Shopping Center, lot 3A amended. It's for property located at 540 and 544 Eureka Springs Drive. The purpose of this plan was to add 4,886 square feet of buildable area and revise the parking area and circulation and depict the as-built access. This plan was previously approved in June of 2008. One of the conditions of the approval was to secure the manhole within the fenced play area for the daycare. Through the course of preparing this plan for certification, the applicant has indicated that the manhole is not located within that play area, but instead it's shown there and one here. The manhole indicated here I believe is a carryover piece of information from the previously approved development plan that showed a car wash in this area. Seeing as how that was not built, the manhole ended up in this location and I believe the applicant has confirmed that with our division of engineering and I believe our staff has been to the site as well. The staff is recommending approval subject to 11 conditions, deleting condition number 12 since that is a condition that they are unable to meet due to the manhole not being in that location. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. This particular plan now comes back to me. Yes. I thought it might. I think I'm the reason for condition 12. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Taylor? Okay. Petitioner? I don't really have anything to add. I just request your approval of the plan. Okay. All right. Any questions for Mr. Phelps? Okay. At this time, the chair will entertain a motion or if there is a discussion by the commission. Motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2008-75 with the 11 conditions, deleting condition number 12. Second. 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, Mr. Engineering, Hillard, and Bill for looking into this for us. It was quite a task to find the location of those as-built manholes, and they helped out quite a bit. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the remarks there. I would also echo those sentiments. The as-builts that Mr. Newman dug up were quite yellowed and showed their age. All right. Okay. Mr. King. Mr. Chairman and commission members, I would like to turn your attention to item B on page 9, and this is to follow up a discussion that we had back in June, actually, at a work session talking about having an amendment to your meeting and filing schedule to schedule a special date for the courthouse area appeal associated with the Centerpoint proposal. We had quite a good conversation, if you recall that day, and set some ideas in place that we're going to run through. But before we get to that, I need to inform you of a couple of things that have happened since we met at that work session back in June. First of all, a second appeal was filed. So now there are two appellants. That has not been widely broadcast, but just before the deadline of the 30 days from the courthouse area board, the Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation filed a separate appeal on the project. So at this point, there are two appeal applications pending. They are all subject to the same guidelines. Certainly we would hear them the same day, but that may have an impact on some of the rules that we were talking about in terms of timing and things like that. And as we kind of move through our list of things we want you to address today, we'll have to kind of revisit that and talk a little bit informally, perhaps, about that. The second thing I think probably that you are aware of is that the courts did rule on the injunction request regarding the demolition. And the court did rule in favor of the developer being able to proceed with the demolition, even though the appeal that is pending before you was to that issue. So if you're not aware or you haven't been by there lately, a demolition of that block has been proceeding along at a fairly rapid pace. And from the appearances of things, likely that issue, the issue of demolition, will basically be completely moot by the time you hear this appeal. Now, that's another thing that may impact the timing of the appeal. We've been in conversation with the appellants, attempting to be in contact with them as to whether with that change they do intend to continue with the appeal. And it is our understanding and the information that we have received, yes, that they do. So our assumption will be that the focus of the appeal will be certainly not on the demolition but on the nature of the new construction. So basically our take is that 95% of the conversation at the Courthouse Area Design Review Board hearing was over preservation of those structures or incorporation of those structures into the design. But clearly that's not going to be possible. And therefore, again, probably completely moot as to a discussion item before the board. Staff certainly would tend to see it that way at this point in time. So with those in mind, I think we do know for sure that we had talked about September 18th being the hearing date for that special meeting, taking your normal work session date and adopting an amendment to your meeting and filing schedule to have a special hearing on this matter only. We still think with this change that there will be sufficient interest and testimony that you will want to do that. We did talk, though, and had expected perhaps a lot of public input. And we had talked about and asked you all to think about whether you would like to start that at 1.30 in the afternoon or perhaps we had talked about probably not in the evening just given the length of time that we were anticipating. And we had talked about possibly mid-afternoon or something, which given how long we expected the presentations in principle to be would allow people probably to come and testify in the evening. Again, with the change in events and again with most of the public focus having been on the preservation or adaptive reuse of those existing structures, we just don't have a sense for how many people in the public are going to want to come and speak to this. So we just wanted to kind of throw that out there. Sorry we don't have answers. We're throwing more questions at you. As I said, we're going to have to have a little bit of probably some informal conversation here today to determine what time on the 18th that you all might like to set that meeting. Okay. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I'm going to need to leave. I'm going to a meeting. So the earlier I can leave on Thursday afternoon, the better it will be for me. So your preference is 1.30? Yeah. Okay. Any other? Mr. Payne, you had a comment? The only comment I have, I can make it work whatever that day, but the comment to me was is that am I hearing you saying, Chris, that you doubt we'll have a lot of public input? I mean, what would be your guess? See, we have been struggling with that at all. We've had everything from a lot of comments from people involved with the appeals saying, you know, obviously that the main concern of their appeal, and again, 95% of the conversation was moot, but we have no idea. Well, I guess my question really goes to this point, Chris, and I don't know whether it's the right time on this schedule or not, but I'll just throw it out there. It goes to the point of are we going to get into process? I mean, how open are we going to let this be? And my concern is is that we get into we need to do this, we need to do that, we need to do a tax amendment, we need to change the process, and I don't know whether that's a smart thing to get into or not. So I would just like to know how we would parcel it. We have talked about that extensively at the staff level as well. It's very clear that no matter what point of view you bring to this issue and whether you're on the development side or developer or the citizens, there is a general recognition that the process, as it's set out in law today, does not well serve the kind of situation that we had. And frankly, I think that there will be a number of different groups, this body certainly one of them, that will want to contribute to suggestions on how the process could be improved in the future. I think, though, that that is totally irrelevant to the hearing and the law as it is today relative to the appeal that you are considering. What we are doing as a staff is we have our conversations about this and develop our staff recommendations on the appeals that are before you. We agreed every time we came up with an idea, we're putting them up here in what we're calling the bullpen so that when that conversation is engaged that any ideas that we have generated along the way can be brought forth. So depending on your point of view, I've heard everything from we need a completely different process for signature-type projects like this than what we currently have to, well, the system just needs some tweaks. But I think there is complete consensus that something needs to be done and will be done afterward. But that will no doubt take zoning ordinance text amendments, which will be its own separate process. So, again, I think it would be a mistake at this point in time to dwell on those kinds of things or have those a part of the hearing. But certainly I think as soon as once the case is over, there will be an extensive community discussion about what should we do for the next time. We're going to limit comment on those type of issues to a later date. That would be my recommendation to the commission, that comments to that just would be held to a later date and would not be relevant to the hearing of this appeal. Okay. Would it be possible to, you know, whoever puts on this appeal, to tell us what they're really going to appeal? I mean, I know that sounds crazy. But, I mean, what I want to get into the fact is I don't think we need to rehash whether they tore the buildings down and whether it was our fault or whose fault it was. We're only here for an appeal. I mean, we can't do anything else. And so I would like them to tell us, you know, define what this appeal is going to be so we'll know exactly where you're coming from. Because if 95 percent of it was the buildings and the buildings are gone, then I think that they ought to define that, whoever's going to make the appeal, define that 5 or 10 percent so that we all know what we're going to be talking about. Understood. And we have had a conversation about that as well, as we try to figure out whether you should or could, even at this point, say that even testimony as to the preservation of those structures as it relates to this property is something you would just say, I'm sorry, that's not relevant testimony. Let's get on to what we can talk about today. I don't know. We haven't had a full conversation yet with Rochelle about that. You know, you certainly hate to limit testimony. But, again, at this point, given the ruling of the circuit court, it is essentially moot. And, again, it's clear those buildings will be gone by the time you hear this appeal. Chris, I don't want to jump in here, but the thought just struck me. If we don't do that, what we've done is we've, and I'm sorry to use this term, but we have created a Humpty Dumpty hearing. You know, we can't put it back together. We can't turn it around. So my point, is it productive if we don't limit this discussion? How can you have a, and maybe this appeal here is not supposed to be a productive hearing. I don't know. But I would hope it would be productive in some area. Well, it still is productive because, again, there were two facets to the action. One had to do with permission of the demolition of the structures on the property. The second had to do with approval of what goes on to replace them. Again, there was very little conversation, and there's not a tremendous amount in the record, although there is stuff in the record about that second aspect. And that is what is clearly still before this commission. So you will basically, as we look at the law, be putting on the hats of the review board in a de novo environment, and we'll hear testimony about what is proposed to be placed on the property and how that comports with the laws and the guidelines that are in place, the yardsticks, as you were, by which whether the new construction is appropriate or not is to be measured. So, again, that's still a pretty tall order. But, again, most of the conversation so far is not related to that. As I recall our conversation, whenever ago it was, forever ago, I think I recall that you said that we could, that someone said that we would be allowed to hear new evidence. Yes. And, in fact, since the law specifically, now I'm putting on law hats. Rochelle should probably comment on this. But the law specifically says that the appeal hearing is a de novo hearing, a new hearing, and you can hear new testimony and new witnesses and new information. Of course, we talked about, given the nature of it and the need for review, after we talk about when we have it, we're going to talk about the time limits, the time limits for submittal of substantive information so they can be reviewed. We talked about all those things at the work session, and we're going to have to revisit those here today. If you are going to go ahead and announce those guidelines, we think it would be good if you did it today. Okay. And I'm kind of stupid about law, but doesn't that, doesn't the adding of new evidence change the perimeters for which the appeal is originally made? Yes, it can. And I think that's one of the ‑‑ I don't, yeah, I am really having a hard time understanding what it is that our, what it is that we're really supposed to be doing and what we're supposed to be hearing. And in fact, what is it that we can decide on? What kind of a decision are we being asked to actually make? To paraphrase the law, you, again, I think will be putting on the hats of the review board, and the law says that you must give consideration and do consideration to the decision of that board, but you have the right to have an independent decision on the appeal, and therefore, indirectly, on what is constructed on the property, at least within the area zoned in the courthouse area overlay district, which is a significant portion of the property. Which is X number of feet of the piece of property. Lynn, you had a question. I've thought a lot about this, and there are lots of text amendments that need to be made. You know, we need to provide for a stay, you know, within our ordinance if there is an appeal to our decision, because currently, you know, that's what Judge Goodwin had said was that the law did not provide for a stay, so that needs to be fixed. Is a de novo, I'm not a lawyer, but is a de novo hearing really an appropriate venue, or should we just be, since the appeal is to the decision of the design board, shouldn't we be looking at their process and introduction? I think that will be an extended conversation after the smoke has cleared. What I was going to say, though, and I'm probably skipping down the agenda that you provided, Chris, is other things to consider. Barb and I had talked about building heights, because we're supposed to look in context whether what is proposed fits with the rest of that overlay zone. And obviously building height will speak to it, and Barb had said that. I've gotten some information from Historic Preservation that has basic height, not specific height, but basic height as far as stories go, figuring stories to be like 10 to 12 feet as opposed to maybe 8 or 14 or whatever, and then basic setbacks of the buildings, which most of them are along the street. I wanted to add to that, and this may be too onerous given the time constraints, but it would be really nice to be able to have maybe digital photographs, something to put on a PowerPoint that shows the facade of each of the structures that are within, I don't know, a couple blocks. We'll see what we can get. We're also seeing about other visual. Historic Preservation has everything documented, I think. Okay. And we're also looking into other visual aids that might be available to put this in context to help you all with that decision. Another question that I had, Randall is an architect and provides the expertise. The rest of us, I think, are going to be looking and throwing a little more subjectivity into the decision. But will the council have made appointments, and is there a likelihood we will have one other certified expert who can? The council did hold their confirmation hearings this Tuesday for your three new members that had been recommended by the mayor. They are on the docket tonight, so we will know after tonight whether the new members will have been approved by council. And then, of course, once they are sworn in, yes, they would be available, any new members would be available to sit on this case. Well, you know, I would like to say I think there's obviously others behind this wall that's more than qualified. You know, sometimes it doesn't always take common sense, sometimes prevails over expertise. And I'm probably over-exaggerating that. But I did have a question on, to me, the whole part of an appeal is looking at information that's in the record and then also dealing with new information that's introduced. Was the bulk of the information initially submitted as a result of the first appeal related to the demolition or related to the new construction? I think you said some of it was 95 percent was demolition. And that is one reason why I have not yet copied all that information. The cost of that is tremendous. I mean, it is a significant amount of our budget. And I wanted to make sure that we were still having appeal before we put the taxpayers' money to that use. So it does appear that there will be, the appeal will be continuing and we will go ahead. We have made arrangements. In fact, all those materials are at a printer awaiting me giving them the green light, and I wanted to have this conversation today before I did that. So that leads me to my next question, to what, you know, the courthouse area review board had information to review, obviously, to make their decision. To what extent, I know we've talked about visuals relative to building heights and things like that. To what extent did they have the information and stash analysis of that data to make their own decision? And part of that appeal is what we need to look at. Yes, we have gone through those materials. We had some questions as to whether we, as a staff, based upon our first review through that extensive amount of material, had everything we needed. We had a conference phone call with Mr. Turner late yesterday afternoon, and Ms. Rackers is going to sit down with Darby and or Kim and go through that and make sure we have everything and know where it is and to see whether we feel, and of course first to make sure that the materials we have reflect what is on the table now so that we make sure we're starting out at the correct point because there have been different alternatives presented, different plans proposed, and we want to make sure we're all starting, you know, from the same page. Right. I guess the only other instance where I think we as a body look at conformance with design that I've seen has been similar to the big box. You know, there's a checklist to the big box, and, you know, I feel like, you know, we make those decisions relative to that checklist. Is there something similar to that that we can do relative to what's appropriate versus, you know, towards new construction? Yes, there are adopted guidelines. I wouldn't call them quite as, well, they're kind of hard to characterize, but they are what they are. The law does say that the guidelines that were adopted by the Courthouse Area Design Review Board are the legal yardstick by which the appropriateness of the new construction is evaluated. As in most guidelines, there is wide room for interpretation, to be honest with you, but what we are trying to do as a staff and one of the things that we see as our role is to do the best we can to clarify what those relevant guidelines are and, if nothing else, give the commission some guidance on the kinds of things you need to be thinking about as you make that review. Okay. I just have one concern, Chris, especially with the interjection of new evidence. It becomes more difficult to make a decision on the appeal versus you're almost having a hearing to make a decision. So that sort of troubles me a little bit. How do you get new evidence that the review board has not heard? I know. We're supposed to call that an appeal on a decision that they haven't reviewed. I understand. And, again, I think that does fall into that realm of things that are awkward about the legal situation, the law, and the process that we have now that clearly strains mightily for all parties when you have something like what has come with the center point. So, again, I think we will review those kinds of things. I know I've spoken to some commission members that even have concerns about you being the appeal body for these kinds of things. So, you know, all those things will certainly be on the table, but, unfortunately, they will not be changed for better or worse. They will not be changed while this particular case is going on. The rules will not be changed in midstream. So we will do our best to work under the rules that we have in the ordinances that are in place right now. Chris, do you want us to go down your list and then we'll go back to open questions? Yeah, I wouldn't come back if you want me. I just want to hit some of those things. Of course. So is the 18th, I think we originally set the 18th for gathering of information and so forth, so that's still good, I guess. The 18th is about as late as you can do it and still meet the requirements of the ordinance that you have the hearing within 90 days of when the design review board acted. Is commission good with 130? Yeah. Okay, 130. Okay. All right. I guess next on this time limit on speakers, since you have two appeals, is that? Well, here's what happens. We've had this conversation. You had originally suggested that you would give the appellants, both sides, all sides, an hour and 15 minutes for presentation of their case in chief and any rebuttal. Now that we have a second appeal, would you give an hour and a quarter to that second appellant? And if you do that, are you going to give the applicant double the time? Because the applicant has raised that question. They feel like they get doubled up on. So, again, you know, this starts to get a little more complicated. Krista, I just thought about this, and if it's a bad thought, feel free to tell me. You won't be the first one to ask. If we know the basis of the appeal, appellate A and appellate B, if we know what the basis of their appeal is, and if one of the appeals is basically on the demolition, why would you want to give them an hour and a half to debate a mute point? Yeah, I think that's right. And, again, we've not sat down in the room with the attorneys, all three attorneys from all three points of view, and had the opportunity to hash that out, whether, given that one thing is mute, whether they even agree with the fact, you know, that it's mute. And if so, how long do you think you might need to present what you're concerned about now? Again, we're struggling with that. I don't have an answer for you. I mean, I think we have to, at some point, you have to give the first appellant that opportunity to appeal. Well, I'm not saying they can't appeal, but you want to give them an hour and a half to appeal a mute point. Well. Well, I think we're going to do this. We've got an hour and a half. So is it okay to put a limit on the first? Can we limit it to maybe 40 minutes per applicant, appellant A, appellant B? Is 40 minutes or 45 minutes per? Because then we're talking. I'm going to look to legal. I think there may be, especially if you go to a 40-minute limit, I think under ordinary circumstances you could quite possibly do that. My concern is in a 40-minute limit, it gives both of the appellants an opportunity to share out, in essence, an 80-minute presentation by coordinating their efforts, and then is it realistic to give the applicant only 40 minutes to respond to what is, in essence, a joint 80-minute presentation? I think there's some validity if you make it that short and concise to saying that the applicant may not have a reasonable amount of time to respond. I mean, I think 80 minutes, when it's the same issue, maybe would be adequate, but I think the other side may have a problem with that. Whereas, if you go up to an hour or so, that's usually considered an adequate time in something like this to give a reasonable presentation, and it gives the applicant a little more time to respond. The other thing you could look at, since there are two applicants is allotting the two appellants, allotting the applicant a little bit of additional time for rebuttal to let him respond to points that may be raised by two different appellants. The other thing, also, is if you announce these procedures ahead of time, the parties involved would have an opportunity to petition you and justify saying they need more time. And if they could justify that to you, you could make that decision. If they do not ask for more time, then they've accepted it, as long as they've gotten some notice ahead of time, so that may be another way to address it. I want to ask, and I'm sure you've thought about this, same project, two appeals. Is there the logic in the two appeals? The clock started on the first appeal at that date, 90 days out, right? Well, the 90 days is from the courthouse area. It's not from the filing of the appeal. It's not? Okay. Basically, since they have 30 days to file, we had essentially a 60-day window on the second appeal. The first appeal came rather early, but the second one was like, I think, the day before the 30-day deadline. Now, has this ever happened before? No. And again, I think sometimes the only way you find flaws in a system is when it gets strained to the maximum. Certainly this case is straining the process and the laws that are in place to the maximum. Chris, it's 90 days from the filing of the appeal that they have. Sorry. And then the question is, if we have two appeals, would you have another 30 days to hear? I don't think you want to hear them. We don't want to go there. I think the problem is, if you tried to extend it beyond the 18th, you'd end up having to have two hearings, because you have to have the first appeal that was filed has to get its hearing within 90 days. I guess that's where I was kind of headed, to separate them out, and not group really which can get to an extended discussion about process on the first appeal side and process even on the second appeal side. So my thought was, you know, if it's a moot point, you can set the limit, 40 minutes, whatever it is, on the first appeal, hear it. I think that's a legal option you would have. And then hear the second appeal. I think my concern, and we looked very carefully at that first appeal that was filed and the wording in it, and there was only one motion made by the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. That one motion approved both the demolition and the construction. So since that was done in one action, arguably any appeal filed has appealed that motion in full. There could be some fault possibly found in the first appeal, because it did not succinctly state the reason for appealing the construction. But I also am not real comfortable in saying you didn't appeal the construction, you only appealed the demolition, because it was done in one motion. So that's not a very clear issue. So I would anticipate even the first appeal is still going to be able to present its reasons and arguments as to why the proposed construction is not in compliance with the guidelines. I mean, I think restricting any testimony on demolition is definitely something that we need to look at, as that is a moot issue and we need to look at the case law and do some research on whether this body even has to consider that. I have not looked at it. That is a possibility. But I think that you are going to have to let even that first appellant probably address the construction issue if he chooses to do so. And I'm not saying that we don't allow them to do that. I'm just saying we're trying to treat it. And I understand resources, time, you know, this thing needs to be reviewed by our body. But I'm just saying that for simplification, if the way this is fleshed out has created something that's never happened before, one way to obviously simplify it is to look at it as two separate. Something else to think about is both appellants know that the demolition is a done deal. Okay? And to appeal that decision, we have to go to appellate court, yes? I guess that's correct. And to my knowledge, no appeal. So the demolition question is not for this body. And if we do impose time limits on each appellant, whether it's in two separate hearings, two different, you know, dates, they know they've got a limited time. So they're going to only speak to the relevant issues. Again, recognizing, I think it's going to be self-limiting, I think is where I'm going with this. But I also wanted to ask, in filing those two appeals, did each applicant deliver a letter, a portfolio, a brief, something that gives a more specific rationale, you know, so that we have an idea as to where they're headed? Basically a letter. It was not extensive information. Nobody tipped their hand, so to speak? I mean, we'd be glad to provide you with copies of what we've received. I guess my question is kind of like Randall's. Are we able to put two appeals together if they're coming from two different bodies? I think you can hear them the same day. The one is based partially on the first one, is what he states in the letter. The very last sentence in the letter says something about this is based also on Preserve Lexington's appeal. That's part of the grounds. And that's the other thing. Even if you separate them, the other party, since it's a novo hearing, would have the right to come and testify. They may be subject to any limitations that you put on it, but they would have the right to appear. Okay. Randall, what my concern is, if you try to parcel them out, you're going to hear the same thing twice. Because they're not going to separate that, no matter how you start down this road, the key points that they want to bring up, either appellant, because of the motion that's done, and also because of the fact that they tied out, each tied to the other one. If you parcel it out, you're going to have two hearings of exactly the same information. I mean, that's just, I just believe that's the way it will go. I don't know. I don't think there's an easy way out of this. We just hold the hearing, allocate time for them, and, you know, move on with it. And, you know, if it's going to be, if you need to give them an hour piece, give them an hour piece, give the applicant adequate time to do it. I mean, we can't, there's no easy way of getting around doing it. So I'd say let's do it. Well, I want to go back to Law's suggestion about additional rebuttal time. You said it earlier about if we put a limit on the appeal, the appellants, then maybe there's additional rebuttal time, that we expand that window of rebuttal time. Is that? I don't think it would have to be much. I think if you gave the applicant an additional 15 minutes, if he needed it on the rebuttal phase. In other words, he would not, if you limit everybody to an hour, he can't do a presentation, initial presentation of an hour and 15 minutes. He would only be able to have additional time on rebuttal. And when he's facing two parties opposing him that each have an hour total, I think that that's reasonable. I don't think those parties would have any basis to complain at his having a little bit of additional time either. Okay. So where are we now? Well, given, here's a suggestion. Given where we are, would you allow each party official appellant and the applicant 45 minutes for case in chief and give the appellant, or not the appellant, give the applicant the possibility, give each of them 15 minutes for rebuttal and give the applicant up to 30 minutes if they needed it for rebuttal since they would have to rebut against two different groups? Would that seem like a fairly level playing field? And as law says, they can come back and petition if they at some point need more time. Right. We would put this out. And, of course, if someone wanted to come and question that, they could do that in your meeting in two weeks. Okay. All right. We will certainly forward any information based on the actions you take today as soon as we can put it together to the parties. And I think with the change in the nature, staff would certainly suggest that three minutes limit would be appropriate for citizen testimony. Okay. You could kind of leave that discretion to the chair when he kind of surveys how many people are going to be there to speak. That's true. I think we'll have sign-in sheets, I'm sure. But, I mean, if you see there's a few people and you want to bump it to five, well, you know, that's your prerogative. We could say that. If you don't, that's your prerogative, too. I would like at the end of the day a full contingent to make a decision rather than we all exit one by one. But I think that's a good idea, three to four. So are we down to other things? We would say, put out there to the chair, at this time the commission intends to restrict testimony, general testimony from the public, to three minutes. However, at the discretion of the commission, depending, additional time may be allowed at that day. Would you like us to express it that way as we put it out there or just leave it at three minutes? Three minutes. Keep it simple. Certainly. Yes, sir. We did talk about submittal of substantive information. That was one of the things that was an issue at the Courthouse Area Design Review Board in that a major packet of information was brought in less than 24 hours by one side. We had talked about 21 days. I don't think we want to use business days. 21 days would be three weeks, which we are getting close to given the fact that we couldn't have this conversation before today because of quorum issues. The 21 days for submittal of information and 10 days to allow the other side, it would have to be in, basically everything would have to be in no later than 10 days before the hearing. Give us at least some time as a staff to review and comment and incorporate that into our recommendations and information that we will present to help you through this decision-making process. I would assume that would be for all parties. Yes, this is all parties. If both families end up, what happens? Anything new 21 days and the other side, whichever side that was, if they wanted to put information in in rebuttal in terms of substantive new materials, it would be 10 days. Obviously, comments that would be made without those written materials would not be subject to that. But any reports, technical information. Again, there may not be as much of that given that a lot of the focus of the first hearing was as to the economic feasibility of incorporating those existing structures into the project. And there was extensive information and complex information and conflicting information from both parties on that. But again, it appears at this point that will be moot. But that does not mean that someone couldn't bring in a whole set of architectural renderings or suggestions and things like that that would need to have some review. And again, just for the last point was just one that we had carried over from the work session conversation as to what kinds of things you would like us to try to do as a staff to help you with this decision. We have talked about that again as a staff and certainly will be doing our best to illuminate what the guidelines are and how the applications may or may not comport with those. As you know, that's going to be a level, it's going to be a tough playing field. And again, you had indicated that you did want us to give a definitive thumbs up or thumbs down as a staff recommendation. If that's still the way you feel, we will do our best to achieve a recommendation of that type. Do you want the staff to give a thumbs up or thumbs down? Yes. Please. Right, right. But again, we do see as one of our roles, and again, because we're dealing with guidelines, which can be interpreted by reasonable minds in different ways, to be honest with you. Even amongst the staff and amongst the commission and amongst the community, clearly. That's what's been going on. So we will do our best to do that, but we do feel that our prime mission is to, as best we can, illuminate the guidelines, illuminate the yardsticks, illuminate what criteria you are to be using so that, if nothing else, we will try to help you through that maze as we try to work through it ourselves. Okay. Is everyone in agreement? Yeah. Chris, I would hope that the role the staff should play, if you should get something within the 21 days in the rebuttal, that you evaluate that based on the appeal. Because if we wade through all the testimony of the previous hearing and 95% of that is on the demolition part of it, we're going to get or I'm going to get brain lock. I mean, when I get down to the point where I need to really be realizing something, I've absolutely had brain lock. So if you want to help us or if you want to help me, let me just talk about me. We want to help everybody. If you want to help me and you get the request within 21 days and or the rebuttal, that's pretty critical to me for your all's evaluation of that. It's probably more critical for me than your evaluation of the earlier part. Understood. I think that would be good also. I'm going to chime in. I think to filter through, even though we need to look at, as a body, that information, we need to be able to filter through and filter through in a timely fashion, much like we do on a weekly basis, all the information we receive. So do you decide an hour per? Forty-five minutes. Basically an hour per, with the guideline being 45 minutes for case in chief, 15 minutes for rebuttal, and the petitioner, if they need it because they have two different groups, that they could go up to 30 minutes with their rebuttal. Staff will also observe the 45-minute rule. Okay. But you get to ask us questions. You can't anyway. The clock stops for questions. Did we pick up the comment Lynn made earlier about the visuals, I guess, in terms of appropriateness? Did we talk about some of the visuals? Some of the visuals, yes. When we talked at work session, I know Ms. Phillips in particular was asking for information about other structures in the district. Right, right. And we have already had conversations with Historic Preservation about that. You have requested some photographs. We don't know that we can document every building in the district, but we may have that. But we're also looking at what might be out there currently in the way of other visual materials, models of downtown, perhaps that we could use to help everyone see the context of the proposal. Okay. We don't have it. Well, maybe the applicant has some of that. I mean, that's the software of today. Is it? Okay. Oh, yes. We will use whatever tools that we can find to help everyone see this. Say that? What did you say again now? Not to put you on the spot. I want to hear that. Since it's a de novo hearing, I mean, it's possible that the applicant could come with a whole new design, isn't it? Well, you know, this is probably the wrong time to talk about this. But, you know, different actions could have different implications. If you uphold the appeal, that means that the application as it was is denied. That doesn't mean the project is dead. It means that the, you know, somebody has to, the applicant technically would go back to step one and could put a different proposal in front of the courthouse area design review board. I don't know if that would be a possible outcome versus you all having to approve a set of a document. There are different things. I think a de novo hearing, they can present new evidence, but it's still a hearing, an appeal of the application that was submitted to and heard by the courthouse area design review board. I don't think in any way the expectation is that there would be a major changed application that would have in essence its first step before the planning commission. I think that there could be like some minor tweaking, as we call it, in response to the appellant's contentions. But I think any major redesign, if that redesign was because this board felt that the original design and application did not meet the guidelines, then that's basically upholding the appeal and reversing the granting of the permit. And as Chris said, they would start back and have to submit a new application and new drawings and go through the appropriate channel. I have another question. Since I've never been through this procedure before, I don't guess really any of you have. What is the procedure once we have all, we have heard from all the parties represented, what is the procedure for this body? You can ask questions. Do we have the opportunity to have an executive close, I mean, can we do anything in closed session? Do we have an opportunity to discuss it? Do we make a yay, nay on the spot? Do we, I mean, what is, what happens? It has to all be done in open session. In essence, this is, the standards and everything are exactly the same as the appeals you hear from the Board of Architectural Review. Exactly. It's just a different set of guidelines. I just thought I'd ask. It is, you will be wearing your quasi-judicial hats on this. Okay. Put it in a similar context on a much, much broader, broader scale. I also, because we do wear that quasi-judicial hat, it's important, I think, as a commission member to be careful what you say in the public. Can I follow up on that? Well, you know, I would hope no one has, I will say personally I have, people have approached me and I would hope everyone recognizes you can't say anything, opinion or not, please. Not without jeopardizing potentially your vote. Jeopardizing. Which is. That's before us. So it's been very hard for me as an architect professional sitting on the commission who has obviously an opinion, but you just, please, not say anything. To follow up on that, it's not a question, I mean, it is a question of what you say, but it's also a question of what you hear. And I think what I'm going to try my best to do, and that's all I can speak for, is that I'm just not going to discuss this with people in the public or whatever. It's not that I don't have an opinion. It's not that I don't read the newspaper. It's just if you ever start discussing this one side or the other, whatever it is, pretty soon you get to the point to where you're a lobbying agent and you don't want to be that. And so you do it however you want to do it, Randall, and I certainly take your counsel very seriously. But I don't think as much of what you hear is what you say. Well, it's like anything that we hear. You can't, without in an open hearing, you can't talk about it. There's just no, I think Dr. Cooper used to put it to me best, always have nothing to say. I know. I'm going to recognize. Any other questions up here? Mr. Cravens. Is there a chance that the appeal on a demolition could be rescinded, I guess, by the applicant? By the appellants? Yeah. Appellant? Yes. I spoke with both of them, both of the attorneys, and they both said they realize demolition thing is a moot point, but they still want to go forward with the appeal as far as the construction goes. The attorney said that? Both of them. Well, I mean, then is there, does this board have to accept any of these appeals? Or could we say we don't feel like that appeal has, you know, we don't hear it. The buildings are on the ground. Well, you must hear the appeals. I do think, though, that if it's understood that the demolition issue is moot, I think clearly the commission can state and I think the chair can enforce during the hearing when testimony goes in that direction and say this is not relevant testimony given where we are today. Thank you. Please move on to the issue that is relevant today. I need a timekeeper here. Len's our timekeeper. Okay. Chris, did we cover your list? I know Mr. Turner wanted to say something. Certainly. I think you've covered everything that we had. We will need you to take an action after you have gotten this. We'll kind of do a recap summary, and then again, as we said, whatever you decide today, we will do our best to get that information out. Okay. Mr. Turner, you had something you wanted to add? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And it's just a question for procedure more than anything else, and that is what's the order of presentation? And who gets rebuttal when? I hadn't thought about that to this point, I guess. That's kind of relevant to the time. Actually, that was one of my lead questions earlier. Who is the lead appellant? And I'm assuming it's the person that filed the first appellant. Right. I assume it would be staff doing an overall presentation, and then the two appellants, and then the applicant, and then appellants rebuttal, and then applicants rebuttal. Okay. Would that sound correct, counsel? Okay. All right. Yes. I've got all important. Staff gets the last comments. But we do need, if there is staff rebuttal on anything that either side said, we need that. Staff presentation first. Then the two appellants in the order in which they filed. The applicant, as we'll call the center point developers, would get to present their case in chief. There would be then rebuttal by the two appellants to anything that the applicant said. And then the applicant would have their time, up to 30 minutes, to rebut the time that the others had. What does citizen say? Oh, pardon me. I think we should, let's think about that. Because there will be citizens on both sides of the question as well. I think before we get into rebuttal, then, clearly, after the two in the case in chief, so after the applicant has had their 45 minutes, we would take testimony, typically as we do, testimony from those in favor of the appeal. It's going to be the reverse. Reverse somewhat, right. Or what we're accustomed to. And then take testimony from the public, I'll say on the applicant's side, in opposition to the appeal. And then the rebuttal as we described it. And staff rebuttal. And then commission Q&A. And vote. Sounds like it works for me. Commission to understand. Okay. You said earlier take action on this, what you've presented to us. Yes. You certainly will need to take action to amend the meeting and filing schedule to create the date and time for the special hearing. Okay. And the others, I would appreciate you taking an action saying you support what we have outlined as the guidelines for the hearing. And staff will put those in writing and publicize them to the best of our ability to interested parties and the public. Okay. Is there a motion to set the date and the time as well as offer support for the staff going forward with what's been discussed and presented today? You need a motion? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the order of, that we adopt the recommendations that we have made today for this hearing on Centerpoint, de novo hearing on Centerpoint. We have it on September the 18th at 1.30, and we adopt the additional restrictions and order of proceedings. Okay. Both for the hearing and for the submittal of the written information for review. Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second to adopt recommendations as presented by staff, set the date for September 18th at the point in time at 1.30, and to move forward with the proceedings as outlined. So all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. I believe that's it. Well, before I say is that it, Mr. Sally, is that it? To the best of my knowledge and belief, Mr. Chairman, thank you. That's it. Okay. Thank you, Darby. Okay. All right. Well, there's no further business. Is there a motion for adjournment? Thank you, Ms. Richardson. Meeting adjourned.