Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everyone to the September 11th meeting of the Planning Commission. And at this time, we do not have any minutes to approve. and I'm going to shift down the agenda slightly to one of our commission items and that being acknowledgement of one of our former commissioners who has graced our presence today and we're delighted to see him, Mr. Jim Mahan. And what I'd like to do at this time is have the commission members, if we could just kind of gather down around front and we'll make a presentation of Mr. Mahan. It certainly... Testing? Okay, great. Thank you. Certainly wonderful to see you here today, Mr. Mahan. And we have a presentation to make, and I'll read it as follows. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Mr. James Mahan from the Planning Commission, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Mahan for his valuable service to this commission from June 10, 2004 to June 30, 2008, having served on the Commission's subdivision committee, and whereas Mr. Mahan has been influential in the formation of the Comprehensive Plan, the Residential Enfield and Redevelopment Study, and the Underutilized Property Survey, and whereas Mr. Mahan has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Fayette County as reflected in his decisions regarding land use and development and whereas the members of the Commission and the staff feel that the service and guidance contributed by Mr. Mahan will be greatly missed by this body. Now therefore, be it resolved, we the members of the Commission along with the staff do hereby express our gratitude to Mr. Mahan for his service to this Commission and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County. And we, the Lexington-Fayette County Urban County Planning Commission and staff, do hereby wish for Mr. Mahan much happiness and continued success, and ask that he continue to give valuable guidance to the members of the commission, and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Mahan and also spread upon the minute book of this body. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This has been a great commission, very dedicated, and I've certainly enjoyed my time on the commission. And excellent staff, I want to hasten to add. It was certainly a pleasure working with a very talented and excellent staff. But thank you very much. I might recognize my wife in the back who no longer has free Thursday afternoons. So one of us is happy and one of us is not. But again, thank you, and I've certainly enjoyed this, and it's been a great experience. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to the commission and thank you to the audience for that presentation. At this time, we will entertain requests for postponements or withdrawal at this time. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman Bruce Simpson. Item number 1A, page 1, Hampton Springs. The subdivision committee had recommended a postponement. We've been doing some work out there with geotechs and environmental folks, and we'd like to postpone this for 30 days. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Staff, 30 days puts us at which meeting date? Be on October 9th. October 9th. Thank you. Okay, we have a request for a 30-day postponement for Plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs. This is a property located at 4674 Harrodsburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion for a 30-day postponement until October 9. Mr. Chairman, move postponement of Plan 2008-71-P until October 9. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Raneke. I'm here for item I. I'm on page 10, DP 208-126. And at this time, we'd like to request proponent of two weeks to the September 25th meeting. We're reworking the site plan. Okay. I'm sorry, did I get your name again, sir? Steve Raneke. Mr. Raneke, thank you. We have a request for a two-week postponement until the September 25th meeting. Is that correct, staff? 25th? Yes, sir. That's correct. September 25th meeting for DP 2008-126 Miller-Bird Commercial Park Subdivision. This is for property located at 2555 Nicholasville Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a two-week postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move the DP 2008-126 be postponed until 9-25-2008. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners on page 2. Bottom of that page is Plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate, Lot 1, request a one-month postponement to October 9th. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. We have a request for a one-month postponement to the October 9th meeting for Plan 2008-76F Bogey Estate, Lot 1. This is for property located at 5846 Old Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone for one month until October 9th, Plan 2008-76F. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And on top of page 9, item E, DP 2008-106, the Secure Justice Property Unit 6, request a one-month postponement to October 9th. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. We have a request for a one-month postponement for DP 2008-106, Secure Justice Property Unit 6. This is for property located at 2945 Polo Club Boulevard and 6401 and 6409 Polo Club Lane. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for one month postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion for a postponement of DP106 for one month. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, are there any other requests for postponements or withdrawal at this time? Staff, do we have any? Mr. Chairman, if I may direct your attention to page 7 of your agenda. Under development plans, item A, DP 2008-60, Blackford Town Center. The staff has passed out to you a white sheet of paper. It is an email to me from the applicant. You'll see my name on the top of it. The applicant has requested an indefinite postponement of this plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We have via email a request by the applicant to Mr. Martin from staff for an indefinite postponement for DP 2008-60 Blackford Town Center. This is for property located at 6600 Manowar Boulevard. We have a copy of that email at our commissioners have a copy of that email here. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? indefinite postponement. Okay, seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of DP2008-60 Blackford Town Center indefinitely. Okay, we have a motion and a second for indefinite postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Are there any additional requests for postponements or withdrawals at this time? Okay, seeing none, we will move into our land subdivision items, and we will begin with our consent agenda, which we have in front of us. And I will turn it over to Mr. Salee to review the consent agenda for the commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Good afternoon. Your consent agenda is one page long, has nine items on it. These are all plans that have been recommended approval by your subdivision committee. Requests can be made to remove items from your consent agenda, either by Planning Commission members, by members of the audience this afternoon, or by petitioners and their representatives if they wish to discuss these plans. The first item appearing on your consent agenda also appears on page 3, item D, of your regular agenda. This is a final record plat, Plan 2008-112F, for Forest Hill Land Company Subdivision, Block H, Plots 33 and 34. This is for property at 422 Michigan Street. The next item is immediately below that, item E, on the same page, Plan 2008-113F, a proposed final record plat for Hinda Heights Subdivision Unit 4B. This is for property located at 1938 Belafonte Drive. The next item is on page 3, item F, a final record plat, Plan 2008-114F, for Covey Ridge Development Company. This is an amended record plat. This is for property at 5527 Athens Boonesboro Road. The next item is on the top of page 4, item G, Plan 2008-115F, a final record plat for Anderson Property Unit 4. This is for property located at 545 Childsburg Road. The next item appearing on your consent agenda is on page 4, item H, of your regular agenda. Plan 2008-116, a final record plat for Greendale Hills, Unit 3, Phase 2, for property at 1055 and 1075 Greendale Road. The final, final record plat appears on page 5, item K, of your regular agenda, Plan 2008-86F, Lakeview Acres Unit 3, Track 10, Lot 12, amended for property at 1545 Lakeview Drive. In addition to these plats, there are also three development plans appearing on your consent agenda. The first appears on page 9, item F of your regular meeting agenda, DP 2008-114, Mitchell Property, a portion of Cope, Mitchell & Cooper, for property located at 1290 and 1340 Deerhaven Lane. The staff has received the required affidavit for the posting of a sign on the property, And in addition, the staff, I believe, has presented at your place a goldenrod sheet with the required EAMP report for that plan. The next item on your consent agenda is on page 9, item G of your meeting agenda, DP 2008-120, a development plan amendment for Lexington Industrial Foundation, Block A, Lot 1. This is for property located at 2651 Palumbo Drive. And the final item on your consent agenda appears on page 10, item H, DP 2008-121, Village Square, Merriman Investments, amended. This is for property located at 2233 Versailles Road. Again, Mr. Chairman, these items are on your consent agenda and can be considered by the Commission if there are no requests to remove any items, either by the Commission, by applicants, or the audience. Thank you, Mr. Salley. You've heard the reading of the consent agenda. Are there any items on the consent agenda that you would like to, if you could come forward, state your name and application you would like to have heard, and then we will remove that from the agenda. Hello, fellow commissioners. Today I'm here for Plan 2008-115F, Anderson Properties. and we have some concerns about the water drainage, so I'd like to have it discussed, please. Thank you, sir. We will remove Plan 2008-115F from the consent agenda for full hearing. Yes, sir. My name is Dave Booth, 1940 Deerhaven Lane, and I'd like to have Item DP 2008-114 removed from the consent agenda. I just think there's too many conditions on it and kind of a strange way that property is approaching. Thank you, sir. We will remove that from the consent agenda and have a full hearing of that. Are there any other items that the audience would like to have removed from the consent agenda for discussion? Are there any items that the Commission would like to see removed from the consent agenda for discussion? Okay, seeing none, at this time we will accept the consent agenda with removal of Plan 2008-115 Anderson Property Unit 4 and DP 2008-114 Mitchell Property from the consent agenda. At this time, if there are no further items for consideration for removal, the Chair will entertain a motion for acceptance of the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the consent agenda in front of us, deleting or removing plan 2008-115F and under the final development plans, DP 2008-114. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda with removal of those two plans as noted. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I guess we'll give staff a few moments to set up and we will hear the first application. Thank you. So I'll be busy. Yep. I'm sweating if I had to have that center point thing, I tell you. I mean, I've been here. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. I'd like to direct your attention to page two of your agenda. The first items to be heard today are final subdivision plans. Plan 2008-24F Thomas Communications, Unit 1C. And we're going to present to you together the second one. Plan 2008-25F, Thomas Communications, Unit 1D. This is a single-family development. It's located out on Walnut Hill, Childsburg, which, by the way, does ultimately or used to connect to Deer Haven, which you're going to be hearing other planning located on that road today. It is close to the Greenbrier development. It is, again, as I said, a single-family development with lotting. We've had two plats already previously approved by this body on the front end of the property. This is the rear portion of this development. Now, again, you can see the building areas that they're proposing on the local street. And along this orange dotted line, which we have added here, this is the very rear portion of that property. And this is all open space. Every bit of this is Homeownership Association open space. they have an 80% open space requirement on this entire development, and that's one of the reasons you see the open area and the type of situation that you have here. These plans have been postponed for several months due to the lack of water service being available to this development. We have received a communication of which you have a copy. It says it will have a star in Kentucky American Water at the top that the applicant has provided to address that situation. You have as well a dark gold sheet and a yellow sheet. These are revised conditions. Now, the subdivision committee at the time that they reviewed this did recommend postponement, as I stated, due to the concerns about the availability of water service to this development. We have received revised submissions, and what you see before you are those revised submissions. With that, the staff can recommend approval of these plans subject to those conditions that you see before you on these sheets. These are fairly standard, but I would like, again, to draw your attention to a couple of those, one of which is on Unit 1C, the dark gold sheet. This is to document compliance with that minimum 80% open space that I referred to. And that has grown out of a concern that on the previous two subdivision plats, there's been a series of consolidation plats and some loss of some open space. I think staff's fairly confident they'll be able to accommodate this, but we would like to maintain an ongoing documentation that that doesn't become a problem. Because if it does become a problem, obviously they could lose some buildable areas and that sort of thing. So that's the purpose for that recommendation. The other recommendation that I would draw to your attention is present on both of the sheets. It's number 8 on 1D, the light yellow. It is number 10 on your dark gold sheet. That requirement, we are asking that the applicant document that water service is available to this subdivision prior to certification. and this has arisen out of our concern as stated before for the postponements that there was not water service available. It is somewhat accentuated by this communication, although the communication does state that they're working on it and they're in agreement on how to solve it. There's no real timing given to us, and we're not really comfortable with when this may be accomplished, and we felt it prudent to make that recommendation. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I've been given these new comments, conditions, and we're fine with these. We do want to talk a little bit about the document water services available to the subdivision prior to certification. What it is is there's always been a question about how much pressure we have out there, and the agreement that we've been working towards is to run a new water line, which will, in essence, create another loop and boost the pressure. How this will work is there will be an easement granted to be allowed to run the water across someone else's property over to this site. There will be money paid to Kentucky American Water Company to install the line. And then they will do the work. And what we're asking for is to have this plan approved. We'd like the documentation to be the fact that the monies have been paid and the easement is, in fact, recorded. We think that it would be fair for us to be able to market the lots, sell the lots, start the houses, at the same time that the water company is installing the water line to boost the pressure. Otherwise, you know, it's not like we are in charge of the contractors and we can get the water line laid as quickly as we'd like. So as long as the documentation is the fact that we've done everything we can do and it's now up to the utility to actually install it, we're comfortable with that. But there is water to the subdivision out there already. We're just worried about the pressure as we get the final build-out. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Murphy? I could just add as well, I'm representing the applicant as well, Jim Ball, and we have worked this out with the water company, or we're working with the water company. And as you know, when Mr. Ball puts his, it's Jim Ball, puts his deposit down, he has to pay in full for the entire cost of the water line. Water company then hires their contractors to do it, and it's a matter of a couple months, perhaps, before it's getting it done. But if we time it to paying the deposit, that simply allows us to be building our infrastructure, the streets, and that sort of thing. As Kentucky American is laying the water line at the same time on that, we are assured by paying the deposit that the water line will be there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Are there any questions for Mr. Cayley or Mr. Murphy at this time? Okay. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience like to speak to these two plans? Okay. Seeing none, I guess staff, do you have any additional comment you'd like to add? No, sir. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Okay. You have, Commission, we have revised staff recommendations on the yellow as well as goldenrod sheet for plan 2008-24F. There are 11 conditions and Plan 2008-25F. There are eight conditions. Both these properties are located at 2236 Walnut Grove. Any other questions or comments from the Commission? it's up for discussion you have a staff would you again we do have concerns particularly with the timing we understand some of that may be outside of their control because the utility company does construct the line when they pay their money in. So this is certainly, from their perspective, a reasonable approach. And certainly staff didn't want to appear to be unreasonable, but obviously we have serious concerns about health and safety and fire protection and that availability, and that's the sole reasoning behind that recommendation. Thank you, sir. Mr. Owens? Mr. Martin. Sorry. I guess a relatively simple question. I would presume that there would not be any occupancy until the waterline gets installed? I would say that is true, yes, sir, based on the building permit process. that the plumbing inspector, for instance, state plumbing inspector, obviously couldn't complete his work unless there was water service present to the unit. I do know that our folks, and I don't wish to speak for them because they are here, but they have said this many times, they don't like to tie things to occupancy permits because it's very hard to keep people out of their units. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Martin. I guess it takes about, once they pay their deposit to the water company, it takes about 60 days for they start construction. I mean, this hasn't been started yet, has it? Any of these lots and streets and things? To my knowledge, I don't believe so. Okay, so the timing looks like it would work. If the water's going to come in about 60 days, you know, they're not going to have any houses or anything out there for 60 days or longer. It's going to take them that long to build the... That may very well be true, and they perhaps could elaborate on that as well. They do have some water pressure out there now. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Thank you. Is there further discussion or a motion? I'll make a mic to come on. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the approval of Plan 2008-24F. And do you want the other plan, too? I'm fine with the other plan as well, if you want. And Plan 2008-25F. With the conditions as written. The revised conditions? Yes, sir. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve Plan 2008-24F and Plan 2008-25F with the revised conditions as presented on the yellow and golden rod. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, on page 4, at the top of your agenda, item G, Plan 2008-115F, the Anderson property, unit 4. This is a final record plat. is for property located out on Childsburg Road. Childsburg Road, Steel Meadow Lane. This is part of the Steel Meadow development. Back up this way, we would have the Lochmere development that you've recently seen. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide the 3.13 approximate acres in this area into a homeowner association lot. I believe there is a wall or other decorative items located here. And in this area, on this lot, they wish to create a lot for a single-family home to be constructed. You can see here this is a 200-foot building line. There is a scenic overlay off of Childsburg Road. Originally, this plat showed a series of, I believe, five townhomes in this area, as well as an access easement that was to serve those townhomes. And that has been removed, that access easement. They have made it clear with their single-family development standards the intent here is to build a single-family home on this property. The subdivision committee did review this. They did recommend approval, and it was subject to eight conditions. Those are very standard conditions, as you can see, as this is, from the staff's perspective, a fairly standard lot split. I do have something I will put up for you. This is strictly to give you an orientation to where the property is located relative to the concerns that we, the public, and several members of the public have had. And I would like to express to you today, you can see from looking at that aerial where Still Meadows comes in. And this property is that darkly shaded area immediately above or to the north. Thank you. Right down a little bit. I don't have my pointer with me, my laser. I'm dangerous with it. So right in that area is the property in question. So I wanted you to see that. So that might help you put the development in perspective. If you have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is that oriented the same way as, I guess, just are we looking at it in the same orientation? Actually, that is oriented if you see Childsburg is running this way in the property off at that angle, whereas here you've got Childsburg and Still Meadow. It's not quite oriented the same way. You would have to rotate this this way and bring this down. Or you could rotate the image on the over. Oh, we could. Yes, we could. In fact, it would be easier. obviously. I believe the other way. That way? Is that? Yeah. That is much closer, yes, sir, to this orientation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin from commission? Okay. Petitioner, are you present? Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We were in agreement with the staff's recommendations, and we were happy to be on the consent agenda. So I'll just, I guess we'll let Mr. Tucker ask his questions, and then we'll try to answer those. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Tucker. Good evening again. My name is John Tucker. I come here today. I got a hold of the, I guess we call it the development plan that went before the technical committee. And under line item 7, which is one of the things that we're here for concern about, which is the water, which I've heard from me several times. I get all the water from these developments. But under line item 7, it says retention is off-site. and it has come to our attention, off-site comes to me. And, I mean, the whole subdivision, this place even has this development plan as we're speaking here today has three waterways hooked to it. Mr. Tucker, can you take the mic? Okay, you can take the microphone with you also if you'd like. I'm sorry. Yeah, that's all. This is a water easement that comes down from all these houses that's built in steel meters. When it crosses the street, it comes into the creek, which comes to me. I guess I'm the off-site retention basin. So I'm wondering today, where we're supposed to be here approving another plan to dump more water when they have to list it on their own map, but they have to show that they have to have a retention to be withheld on their own property? That's the question I have for you. It's not only the water. They pointed out to me this week, I asked Mr. Newman, Hiller Newman, earlier this week, and I asked him where the retention was. And he proceeded to tell me it's the reservoir. That's after it crosses me. I asked Mr. Martin today, earlier this morning, in the same reply. And when I got a little further into it with him, I asked him this question. I said, Mr. Martin, I said, this is the way things have been done. And I figured after all the times I've been here complaining, the consent decree, that something needs to stop. And I thought maybe today might be the day. So that's why I'm here, and that's why I'm complaining against this petition today, because I get all the water. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. The line item 7 you referenced is in the technical committee. That would be fine. Is that what you referenced? I'm sorry. We don't have that. It's item 7. It went to the technical committee. It's on the plan. Okay. All right. It's a copy I got from Hillard Newman. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this plan? Okay. Petitioner? All right, I will do my best here to clarify this. The Anderson property that we're talking about here lies in Expansion Area 2, and the Expansion Area Master Plan for the stormwater management for all of this area has two – The management itself will be provided by two different watershed area-wide management plans. One of the basins is on the guest property, and then this property off of that flows through the system. There's also systems that could be used in greenways. This doesn't have a greenway designation across it, so through the master plan, there's no basin shown here because we have no greenway and we don't have either of the regional basins. It is true that the reservoir, I believe, is the lowest point down in this area. And then if you go to the stormwater manuals, they talk about the regional stormwater management plan for expansion area 2A is per the drawings prepared by the CTI study, which also does not show basins on this. It continues off-site from what we have. and with both the master plan expansion area, the stormwater manual, and the CTI study of the area, we feel that we've done what was required through all these plans. The piece of ground you're looking at is the last two acres of the development. We're asking for one lot with one house on it and then the HOA lot up front. I don't know what else I can add. Mr. Anderson, have something. You know, with EAMP, they did a watershed stormwater master plan. If you detain all the water, you're going to make the water reach that level at the same time, creating higher peaks. The one that's close to the destination of where the water is, they let it flow on through in order to prevent the peak. Is that correct, Chris? that's the standard where if you detain everything you sew it up until the rest of the water gets there what we're doing, we're going from five townhomes who would have covered at least 10,000 square feet of floor here to go into one single family residence we've decreased the amount of impervious surface this was a master plan watershed the reason there isn't a detention long term detention there is because it doesn't want to detain the water until it all gets there at the same time, creating a higher peak. We also have a small detention there at this time. It's a temporary detention that we will have to remove, but it's there as a silt check to keep the silt and dirt from entering into the watershed. It is correctly designed. It is operating properly. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, we have a few. This is me up here, Chairman. We have a few new commissioners. If you could give us your full name. A lot of us know you, but... Sure. I'm Dennis Anderson. I live at... They've changed my address four times since I've lived there, but I think I live at 3204 Stillmatt. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. I guess, Mr. Chuck, do you have any rebuttal at this time? like i said earlier the the reason they have waterways across there is there's water coming from that subdivision and i guess the last thing i need to close this out with is the water goes to the reservoir eventually it's lexington's water reserve all the pollutants and all that come from the blacktop, houses, cars, automobiles, lawn chemicals. You're drinking it. It's just a matter of time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Staff, you have rebuttal this time? No, sir. Okay. Thank you. We'll close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to Commission for any discussion, discussion of the plan. There's a motion. We've heard staff's presentation and we've had some petitioners presentation, citizen comment. There were eight conditions for this plan. So yes, Ms. Phillips. I have a question for staff. Are there impervious surface limitations within the zoning district? There is a required open space component, and when the master watershed study was done by CTI engineering, as was discussed, in the expansion area, instead of going with the mandatory what has been referred to the birdbath retention basins on every project, there was a master regional detention system planned and incorporated as part of the exaction program, And that is the stormwater plan that has been implemented in this area. In doing that, of course, the firm used runoff coefficients based upon estimations of what that would be, and I'm sure with safeguards built in. I can't speak to that not being an engineer. I do know philosophically how it was done. But there are inherent in the zoning restrictions certain amounts of open space required. I don't know that that drives the runoff coefficients that the design engineer used. Thank you. In calculating open space, are paved surfaces allowed to be counted? No. So driveway surfaces, a patio, a dedicated recreational space, whatever it might be, would not be considered open space? Perhaps some decking or something like that might be able to be. But there is an open space requirement in all developments residential in the expansion area of at least 25%. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2008-115F with eight conditions. We have a motion and second to approve. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. Good afternoon. The next item on your agenda appears on page 4. It's plan 2008-117F Bruce Properties. This is for property located at 3401 McFarland Lane. This is a final record plat. That sheet's not up there. It is just off of Todd's Road, and the property is accessed through the Brighton East Townhome subdivision off of Cavanaugh Avenue or Cavanaugh Lane and then to Sanibel Drive, which ends here and becomes a private street that they proposed here for Corinthian Court. This proposal is to subdivide one lot into ten buildable lots, as well as to create a homeowner association lot for this property, as well as for the private street there. As you can see, this is the golf course property there. This is Todd's Road, and there's the entrance into Brighton East Town Home subdivision on Cavanaugh. to Santa Belle right there where the private street begins. The subdivision committee recommended approval of the plan subject to 20 conditions. We would recommend that number 20 be revised to re-denote the design condition on the preliminary plan per note number 8. That note relates to information provided at the time of the final record plat regarding dedication of Todds Road as well as the design and infrastructure at that time. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any questions for Mr. Taylor at this time? Commission? Thank you, sir. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. We're in agreement with Notes 1 through 19. I just would like some clarification on Note 20. I'm asking that the property along Todd's Road not be dedicated at this time. And when the state comes in and widens Todd Road, the owner would at that time be willing to dedicate the land. But he would set it aside now as a non-buildable area and keep it in his homeowners association. Thank you, sir. Any questions for a petitioner? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this plan? Okay. Staff, do you have any? It's our understanding that property to the adjacent size of this property have already dedicated right-of-way, and it came up through the subdivision committee process that it would be preferential that this right-of-way be dedicated at this time through the final record process. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Ms. Phillips? I have a question for you, Chris. Why is Corinthian court going to be a private street and not publicly dedicated? I believe the developer would have to answer that question. Okay. Can you answer that, Mr. Carter? to be honest I do not have an answer this plan was approved before I was involved it was approved as a private road is the road going to be built to standard specs it is indeed built to Lexington standard specs I guess if it is dedicated later it will meet their standards It will be gated. It will be gated. Yes. That answers my question. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions at this time for staff or petitioner? Okay. We will close this portion of the hearing and defer to commission members for any further comment, discussion, and or motion. Ms. Phillips? I have another question for staff. These lots then will be double frontage lots in that they will face McFarland Lane as well as Corinthian Court? Matt may need to answer this, but I believe there is a timing issue with McFarland Lane and its closure, and I believe Matt can speak to that. At some time in the future, I don't know when that time will be, but McFarland Lane will be closed and the land will revert to these 10 property owners. And at that time, the developers will remove the road and he's going to fill it in with dirt and plant grass. But there is one house at the back of McFarland Lane that's presently using that. But that's where it stands now. So will those addresses be on Corinthian court for those lots? That's correct. Okay. Any other questions? I'm sorry, are you wanting the verbiage for? Or just give me a synopsis? Well, it's a very long note. We were just asked to be denoted and carried over from the preliminary, but I can put it up if you guys would like to see it. Okay. If you could. Okay, then is it our understanding that the note stays, I was going to say the note carries forward, because we've got that word discuss, and so I mean, I don't know what... Mr. Day, so you'll understand the key, and they've highlighted it, this information is necessary and must be provided prior to the recordation of the final record plan, and this is a preliminary plan requirement. We felt it necessary to carry that over so that it be there, and that everyone knows that that information must be submitted and approved prior to the recordation of the And so leaving the word discuss will take care of that? We need to have that note denoted on this final record plat. Okay. I'd be willing to make a motion that we approve Plan 2008-117F, changing number 20 from discuss to note. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve Plan 2008-117F with 20 conditions, changing number 20 to say denote design condition on preliminary plan for note number 8. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda, top of page 5, item J, Plan 2008-118F Sand Lake and Estes property. This is a final record plat. It is located out this property at the corner of Manowar, Richmond Road, Eagle Creek Drive, Lake Wells Drive ends in this cul-de-sac at the rear of the property. I know you all are very familiar with some of the development plans that you've seen recently on this property. The original one for the overall property that was subject to much discussion, and then the most recent development plan in this area that amended this area for the location of a restaurant here. There was also a removal of the conditional zoning restrictions, you may recall, for the drive-through on this property. And this plat does, in fact, reflect the development plan in that this is the lot where the car lot was approved. This is a future development in this area. Again, as I said, lot four is the restaurant that was approved on the prior amended plan. There's a building located here and here. You can see they're proposing this public street on this plat here and here. This is the access easement that was approved that will serve these properties. There were several waivers granted in the past. There was a waiver granted on this cul-de-sac by this body where the right-of-way is adjacent to the back of curb. There was a waiver granted at this intersection to allow this intersection to be constructed in this manner. This area in here is an area of pavement that is to be removed at one time. And, again, Eagle Creek Drive will come in and serve the property off Sand Lake through here. This is approximately 6 1⁄2 acres, 4.7. The remaining acreages are all a little over about two-thirds acres in size, three-fourths. The subdivision committee did recommend referral. There are a large number of standard conditions on this property. There are several that, starting with item 11, that I'm going to bring to your attention briefly. And that is we want to designate a pedestrian easement here. with the primacy being to the urban county government. And again, that's due to that waiver that was granted, that the right-of-way ends at the back of curb, and there needs to be a pedestrian area here. And again, we want to make it clear that the urban county government has primacy within that easement. Items 14, pardon me, 12 and 13 are related. They are related in that on the development plan, the Gentry Markham property in this area have been given access permission to here and also permission to do storm drainage. and to get on this property and do fill and that sort of thing so they can properly develop because, as you all recall, they're not a part of the development plan nor a part of this plat. And those conditions refer to that note on the development plan that explains those requirements. We also have some conditions, as you can see, on resolution of several issues. And importantly, we have a waiver request. And the applicant is requesting a waiver request. It is a waiver of substantial completion, and it's a waiver request for this street in here. And you may inadvertently hear people call this Beale Street. It's not going to be Beale Street. It's going to be Sand Lake. Beale Street apparently has been used elsewhere. But you may hear us call it that because we've been calling it that for a long time. But Mr. Sally is going to present that waiver request to you on this stretch, again, right through here. With that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin from Commission? Thank you, sir. Once again, good afternoon. The staff has put at your place a report on findings for waiver of land subdivision regulations. As Mr. Martin has explained, a waiver of your land subdivision regulations is proposed as part of the approval of this final record plan. The waiver is for a portion of what is now known as Sand Lake Drive, immediately close and connected to Richmond Road. You may recall, those of you that have been on the commission, we had a number of discussions with the development plan about the reworking of the Richmond Road Traffic and Safety Ordinance in this area. The staff would like additional time to confer with the law department to ensure that any approval of this waiver is not contrary to the requirements of the Richmond Road Traffic and Safety Ordinance. Secondly, the staff wanted additional information about the utilities in this particular area. In the justification for the waiver, utility relocation is cited as a hardship requiring the waiver. The waiver is intended to allow recording of at least some of these lots prior to the recordation of this portion of the public street. Upon a site visit, it appears that the utilities in question are parallel to Richmond Road and not along the length of this proposed street at almost 300 feet. Thus, the waiver as we see it in the application is for this entire portion not to be recorded with the adjoining lots. While we're sensitive to the hardship at this location, this portion of the street has been constructed with curb and with sub-base, and staff believes that at least a considerable portion of this street is eligible to be recorded along with some of these other lots. So for those two reasons, the staff is recommending today a postponement of your consideration of the waiver request part of this application. This plaque can be considered and can even be approved by the commission without the waiver. It would mean, like we do in some circumstances, that we might have to revisit the waiver if you agree with the staff and postpone that part of the request. We have provided our two reasons for recommending postponement of the waiver in our report, but I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have about our recommendation on the waiver part of this request. Thank you, Mr. Salley. And the waiver request is condition 15, correct? That is on your agenda, yes. It refers to condition 15, sir. Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Solly at this time? Thank you, sir. That concludes the staff report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, petitioner. Mr. Chairman, I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here today for Dennis Anderson, who's the owner of the entities that have applied for this plat. I think to the extent we have any issues about the substance of the plat, Rory is going to address those. I'm going to address the waiver request. And I also want to report to you that, as I advise those of you that were in the subdivision committee and those of you who were with us in February when we had the development plan, know that there have been some disagreements between my client and the adjacent property owners, And we have resolved those, and we are in the process of, if you see the scurrying around, signing an agreement. And as part of that agreement, there are going to be some notes that we're going to put on the plat, and I'll address that in a moment. And I think they will have their spokesman talk to you in a moment. I want to talk about the variants, and I think there is confusion as to the extent of the variants that we're requesting. so I'm going to try to explain it. The bill is correct. This road, Sand Lake, formerly Beale Street, is complete up to about 30 feet short of the right-of-way with Richmond Road. The service road is not pictured on here, but if you're familiar with it, it extends to the Richmond Road side of the service road. And that last 30 feet or so has not been constructed. That's the only portion of the request that we're asking for the bond waiver. So we're not asking to, this is all substantially complete in the normal process. We wouldn't be asking for a waiver. It's this final 30 feet. And the reason that we cannot complete that street, which is only a week's work for the contractor, is that there's a conduit for fiber optic cable, or whatever they call it, that has to be relocated before we can complete the street. And we have a contract with, I guess, the telephone company to do that. They have told us that they won't be able to finish that work until the end of October, and then we come on and finish the last 30 feet, which, again, just takes us a week. So the hardship is that there is a significant delay for us recording this plat because of that last 30 feet, because of waiting for the utility to complete the relocation. We have a tenant for lot four, and until we record a plat, they're not able to get their financing, so that does cause a hardship for our tenant as well. So that is the basis for the request of the waiver to allow us to go ahead and create these lots. Sand Lake Drive, this portion of Sand Lake Drive, is and will be complete to tie in to South Eagle Creek. So there will be public street access to these lots via South Eagle Creek and this portion of Sand Lake Drive that is complete. And we're not asking for any bond waivers on that. it meets the normal requirements. It's just this last 30 feet. It's my understanding from the staff, and I think that that I hope that addresses reason two, that we're not asking to waive the entire street. We're just asking that last 30 feet, but to be permitted to record lots including lot four. The other basis for it is that construction has taken place adjacent to the street in question, albeit temporary construction, contrary to the adopted Richmond Road Traffic and Safety Ordinance, and there's a question about whether this would be contrary to the ordinance. This again, this is a construction timing situation that if we had the development plan, it would be easier to explain. But again, I'm going to use my pencil and the service I'm defacing the staff's exhibit. Let the record show. This is the service road that's currently in front of 3292, the Gentry and Markham property. And it stops somewhere at that point. There's a gap, and that was the way the original Richmond Road plan was approved. The amendment that the council approved requires that this come out and this be the new entrance, and it also requires that this come out. While we've been developing the site, this has been the only access into the property because this hadn't been built. So this has been a construction entrance, and we were using this entrance as construction, and we had put rock down in that area, and we got several violations from the Division of Engineering that we were tracking mud and dirt on the roads. So Mr. Anderson's contractor went back and paved that connection so that the construction traffic would no longer put mud, dirt, et cetera. There also was a curb put here, and it's temporary, but the purpose of the curb was to divert the water so that it would go down the street and not go on to the Gentry Markham property. That was the purpose of that. It is the, we have talked with the state because the state has a say-so in this, and they are aware of this. They saw it and questioned it, and we explained that this was the construction entrance that we'd been asked to pave it. And they said that's fine, but when this connection is made, that has to come out. And we're agreeable to doing that, and we will take that out. Now, that gets back to the Richmond Road Ordinance as to why that's a violation of the Richmond Road Ordinance. It's our position that this is simply a temporary construction situation. It's going to come out. the Richmond Road Ordinance says how it should look when it's done. There's nothing in the Richmond Road Ordinance about timing and phasing. It just talks about, and when this is done, this will be the connection per the ordinance, this will come out per the ordinance, and this will come out per the ordinance. But it can't all be done at once because of just construction problems, which gets back to if the utility company were able to remove it in a quicker fashion, we would be able to connect the street, and then the construction entrance and that pavement would be removed. So, again, there's been nothing secretive about our construction entrance. Again, it was put there at the request of the Division of Engineering. And so, but again, it is not, in our way of thinking, it does not violate the Richmond Road ordinance because it's merely a temporary situation. And the ordinance, as amended, clearly shows that that's to be removed, meaning that service road, as is that piece. And that's what this plan shows. So based on that, we think we're entitled to the waiver because it is a hardship to hold this plat up. for five or six weeks. And again, the closer you get to the end of the building season, then the more dicey it becomes to finish your paving. The other thing I want to address is that we've been in discussion with Mr. Simpson's clients, and we have agreed to put four notes on the plat, and I'll read them for the record, and I'll give you copies, but I want to go ahead and put these in the record. Some of these are ones, I think Tom talked about them that we talked about at the time of development plan. The first note is that developers shall provide a drainage easement from the retaining wall to the 3270 and 3292 Richmond Road properties. And again, to be clear, 3270 is the Snyder property here. 3292 is the Gentry Markham property. Access to the retaining wall shall also be provided to permit the placement of fill material on 3270 and 3292 Richmond Road to the acceptance of the Division of Engineering. Again, that's a note that's on the development plan. We're going to place it on the plat. Second, I'll have to explain this one. Developers shall provide a vehicular and pedestrian easement if necessary for the property at 32 Richmond Road to have access to the portion of Sand Lake Drive, a.k.a. Bill Street, that should say street, which joins the eastern boundary of 3292 Richmond Road. That's a little complicated. What the concern is there is this is the Gentry property. This is the new dedicated right-of-way for this street, Sand Lake Drive, that will be accomplished by this plat. There's a concern that perhaps there will be a gap between that right-of-way and their property line, which we feel pretty comfortable the staff will not let that occur because there's a specific regulation that you can't create spite strips but nonetheless to ease that concern that language says that if necessary for this property to get to this street they can have access over our property this this right now is sand lake property it won't be when it's dedicated but this is something they've asked us to do so we want to put it on the platte. I can try to explain that better but I doubt it. Then the following will replace note 10 on the platte. The properties located at 3292 and 3270 Richmond Road are hereby granted easements over the private access easement shown here on and again. I'm enjoying this. The access easement right there. Vehicular and pedestrian access and for access to utilities, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, which easements shall run with the land for the benefit of the properties located at 3292-3270 at Richmond Road. So at some point in the future, if they want to cut a driveway or sidewalks onto that back access drive. They have an easement to do that. And part of our agreement is that we've prepared access easements that will be recorded in the courthouse so these would run with the property beyond who owns these in the future. Last, we will also have a note, and this does sort of address the waiver, that there shall be no certificates of occupancy for any lot on the plat, which is this plat, until Sand Lake Drive is completed to Richmond Road, except for the final surface core, sidewalks, and miscellaneous punch list items, which are bondable pursuant to Section 4.7 of the subdivision regulations. And again, they wanted to have some assurance that Beale Street would be connected, that last 30 feet would be complete. So we've agreed to have an occupancy note on the plat. So, again, we would ask that you approve the plat, grant the waiver based on the hardship and delay in recording this, and also add the four notes I've described. Now, I don't know, Roy, do we have anything else on the plat? Can you come forward there, Mr. Cayley, so we can capture all the records? I think what he's saying, number 18, resolve Richmond Road landscaping ordinances. I think our discussion at the committee was that would be something that we would work with the building inspector on landscaping because the ordinance isn't clear as to what is our calls over some issue about trees or bushes or something. So if we could incorporate 18 and 3, that the building inspection approval of landscaping, including landscaping required by the Richmond Road Landscaping Ordinance. Is that it? Everything else we're agreeable. Then we're agreeable. That was kind of fast, but... It was quite thorough. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Weisman. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this plan? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Bruce Simpson here on behalf of Markham Gentry property. And we have worked out agreements with Mr. Anderson and his counsel relative to the waiver. And we do not object to the plat nor the waiver that's been requested based upon the notes that Reno represented would be included on the plat. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Simpson. Is there anyone else like to speak to this plan? Okay thank you. I did have a question I guess from Ms. Weisman. Those notes that that you had discussed with Mr. Simpson I guess staff you hadn't seen those notes today is the first time staff has seen. they haven't seen what was presented to us, the four. Two of the notes, the one about the drainage easement on the wall and the access over the access easement were discussed at the development plan at the subdivision committee. the other two about occupancy and the easement access to the Beale Street was not, so I'll give them this right now. Okay, thank you. All right. I was just going to add. Mr. Holmes? I guess I'd like to see the staff review those notes at some point in time because they're pretty significant and they're substantial and we haven't had an opportunity to see those yet so we can get some feedback from the staff. Okay. Thank you. While we review those notes, I guess at this point, staff, do you have any additional comment to add? I guess in reading the waiver that staff had recommended postponement, I guess Ms. Wiseman had provided, it appeared, she said there appeared to be some confusion or misunderstanding. Is that accurate, I guess, in terms of? Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you were to review the letter that is attached to the waiver, you can see that it lacks a lot of specific information. It basically just requested a waiver to 4-7. Well, I was going to say, if Ms. Weissman had written that letter, we probably wouldn't be saying that. Not a knock against you, Mr. Cayley. Okay, at this time, Ms. Weissman, do you have anything additional you'd like to cover? Okay, all right, I'll ask the commission, do you have any questions before we close this portion of the hearing? Any questions, comments for either staff or petitioner? Okay, we will close this portion of the hearing. You've heard presentation by staff as well as petitioner in offering a clarification. to that waiver. I guess I want to ask staff with regards to this waiver, how do you feel? What staff's position based on what we've heard? I need to be looking this way. Sorry, Mr. Sully. Not a problem at all. Ms. Wiseman was correct. The information she provided did address condition number two in the staff report. The letter just was not specific as to how much of that street was requested for the waiver. As to item number one, we have not had time obviously to confer with the law department. If the commission is inclined to adopt the waiver as it's been presented to you, one thing that we would want in the record of this hearing is that between now and the time of certification of this plan, staff would like the opportunity to confer with the law department to make sure that this waiver does not violate any tenant of the Richmond Road Ordinance. If we discovered something that What we did think was problematic with that, I think the staff would be willing to re-docket this plan for further consideration by the Commission. That would be an option to allow you to consider moving it forward today, knowing that if it is discovered that there's a problem, rather than postponing it and discerning that, that we could bring it back to you for further discussion. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Any questions from the Commission? Yeah, I have one. So that would allow the staff to give you time, Bill, to look at the Richmond Road ordinance to make sure this complies with the ordinance. I think that's important. Yes. Make sure that happens. Yes. There will be some time lag between today and the time this plant is certified. So, petitioner, are you in concurrence with what Mr. Siley had suggested going forward? Yes, sir. We do agree with that. You are in concurrence. Okay. with that said I think staff wanted to get that into the record and should the Commission feel we can go forward with this plan granting this waiver we have that as an option as well so at this time the chair will entertain a motion or if there's any further question or comment Mr. I believe I'll defer to law. Is that something we can do? If you grant the waiver now, then obviously note 15 can be deleted unless we want to revise it to refer to the condition that staff ask be placed on the waiver. Do we need to address note 15 where we say provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver? If the Planning Commission makes a motion to grant the waiver, but it has the staff condition on it, that it needs to be reviewed by law to determine that it's in compliance with the Richmond Road Ordinance, maybe we should instead amend that note to refer to that condition of the granting of the waiver. Well, I just want to make it clear that if the determination is that it doesn't violate the Richmond Road Plan, that the waiver has been granted so that we don't have to come back and have a hearing that says... That's our position. That's our intent with this. And if we can perhaps reword 15, let's say provided the condition to the granting of the waiver is found to be satisfied? Well, I guess granting the waiver subject to. By the Department of Law or approved by the Department of Law? Yeah. Would that be? But it would not require further action by the commission if the decision. It would be the equivalent of a sign-off by engineering or whatever, I think. I mean, if we can word it that way. I think the waiver could be granted subject to a condition that the Richmond Road Ordinance be complied with. Okay. That sounds good. That's okay. All right. So we acknowledge, I think to answer Ms. Whitman's question, we've acknowledged a modification to condition 15. I did notice that the petitioner requested 18 and 3, I guess not being at the subdivision committee. I'm not sure. Can you respond to that request? Mr. Chairman, in conversations with building inspection, they are comfortable with incorporating 18 into their sign-off under 3. We would add that language specifically to their sign-off under 3. Okay, so incorporate 18 into 3, so it now leaves a total of 18 conditions as opposed to 19. Yes. Okay. All right. Any other questions, comments? Is there a motion? I think there's a reword to condition 15. It's 18 conditions. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve. Hey, help me here. Plan 2008-11, 118-F, subject to the following conditions. Subject to the 19 conditions. Well, it's 18 conditions now, right? Right. Subject to the 18 conditions. As amended in this hearing, by 18 is incorporated into 3 and 14, is this 14? 15 is amended as reads following, provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver to order. Grant of a waiver. Grant of a waiver. The rest stays the same through regulation and then is found to be in compliance with the Richmond Road ordinance. Does that cover everything we need to cover in this motion? I want to beat Steve up here. We also need to add back to 19 conditions, provide that the notes that we've presented be added. Okay, so what, so, Ms. Wiseman, we need to say what? I think just condition and addition of four notes presented by the applicant. Okay, and staff is in agreement with that. Okay. And with the addition of a new condition 19 incorporating the notes submitted by council. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. I will not attempt to repeat that motion. as read into the record. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Don't we need to actually grant the waiver then? We need a motion to grant the waiver. I did one, I'll do the other one. I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to grant the waiver. Is there a number on this waiver? 4-7D. 1, it looks like. Based on the following findings. Granting the waiver would avoid a severe hardship in proceeding with development Beale Street, a.k.a. Sand Lake Drive, cannot be completed as required. The utilities are relocated in that area. Pavement currently in place is strictly temporary. For construction purposes, this approval is subject to compliance with the Richmond Road Ordinances. Okay, we have a motion and a second to grant the waiver based on the findings. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. on the top of page 6, we have planned 2007-177F, Sharkey Property Unit 4. This is a final record plan creating three individual lots. This is located at the rear portion of the Sharkey Property, which is just inside of New Circle Road at Leestown Road. This portion is in the back southeast corner where Louis Place and Hatter meet. It's adjacent to the Meadowthorpe Shopping Center. The request for this plan is for an extension plan with the conditions that are posted on the agenda. The last time this was approved was September 1307. 1407, therefore it will become, you can't use it. And so the staff recommends approval with the conditions presented on the plan, the 11 conditions. Any questions? Thank you, Ms. Galt. Are there any questions, Ms. Galt? Thank you. Are you okay? Yeah. carpet petitioner Rory Cayley with EA partners I guess the only question I had on these conditions was item 10. We recorded lot 1 of this. I was wondering if that met the resolve of the compliance with the approved development plan. That was Tony's plan. It's been certified and built. My only question was, had I met that condition? And then we were agreeable with the other 1 through 9 and 11. She's probably mortified right now. Am I confusing everybody with this? I believe that condition referred to the small lot in the lower right corner of the drawing. Yeah, when this was first approved, there was a development plan for a single use here on this piece of ground. As they were getting certified, they needed a lot to stand on, so we put the plat forward as well. We recorded this lot. As we went through getting this lot approved, we had the condition that we worked it out with staff on their development plan and our plat to resolve how we complied with the development plan as shown during the zone change. I believe we did that. And then item 11 is terminating Louie Place. As the rest of this property is set up under a subdivision plan or development plan, what happens with Louie Place would be resolved as well. So I think 10 was done once we got lot one recorded and the development plan was certified. If that's true, then 10 is immaterial. Okay. But it could remain and it will not have any effect on the plan. I see. So you're saying it should remain or could remain? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Anything else Mr. Kaley? No we're in agreement with the other conditions Okay Alright we have It appears to be an Extension or Of this plan Plan 2007-177F There were Originally planned Originally approved on September 13th And it's subject to the previous 11 conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this plan? Okay. Seeing none. Okay. Staff has indicated that 10 could remain on the condition. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the extension of for Plan 2007-177F with the 11 conditions as shown on our agenda. Okay, we have a motion and a second to grant the extension subject to the previous 11 conditions. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Ms. Galt does appear to be okay. She apparently tripped over those high heels, but we're having her sit and take a break to make sure. The next item on your agenda is on page six. There are three items. They are all re-approval, pardon me, extensions and re-approvals. The first one is an extension. That is M, Plan 2005-166F, Clark Property Unit 1B. The next item, Item N, Plan 2005-169F, Clark Property Unit 1E. And Item O at the bottom of the page. Plan 2007-156F Clark Property Unit 1M. And again, as you can see from the title, they're all plats for the Clark property. They're located all in the vicinity of Polo Club in the development on the lower end of Polo Club on the south as it runs south. this particular one, the Clark Property 1B, if you can ask for an extension, this area right in here has already been recorded. So in essence, they're asking for this extension so that they can get Section 2 to be recorded. These are the only remaining lots, and there are, as I thought, there are eight lots here that need to be recorded that have yet to be recorded, so your approval will allow them to move forward with this section, with those eight lots. Clark Property Unit 1E, you have a green sheet. There is a revised condition. Interesting from a planning perspective or perhaps just a planner's perspective. Sweet Clover Lane, when this was brought to you for approval and filed with these plats, This little lot right here was included. And we said to them, and you can see on your agenda, nope, you've got to take that lot off. Because at the time, there was no preliminary plan approved for this area. There was no frontage. It's kind of a technical matter. Since that time, that plan has been approved. There is an approved extension through here. So they brought this back now. And as you can see on your green sheet with that number nine revised condition, We're just asking that they add the street dedication and right-of-way in front of lot 262. The Clark property, unit 1M, is a small section here along Polo Club Boulevard as it intersects with Ice House Way. And you can see, again, here's Ice House Way on this section through here where it hits Sweet Clover, and then Sweet Clover extends on this plat. but they're not exactly all together, but they're all in the vicinity. And, again, this is the only one that needs re-approval that none of these lots have yet been recorded, so they've come back to you for the re-approval subject to conditions. And there are no revised conditions on that plat item O. It is just Unit 1E, Plan 2005-169F, again, where you'll see a revised condition. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I guess, so you covered 1M as well, right, in your presentation? Pardon me? You did cover 1M, correct? 1M, yes, sir. All three. All three, okay. Thank you. Okay, any questions for Mr. Martin? Petitioner? Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We're in agreement with the staff's conditions, including the revised green sheet for Unit 1E. Request approval. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Cayley? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? Yes, if you could come forward, state your name and address, please. My name is Dave Booth, 1940 Deerhaven Lane. and been involved with the expansion area master plan in this area since before there was an expansion area master plan. And I've gotten up here a number of times to speak, but still am nervous walking up here. Really, and I would be remiss not to bring this up, this continues to add development onto the Clark property, continues to move it forward, and we have an inappropriate street connection. The inappropriate street connection occurs at Todd's Road and Deerhaven Lane. The very first piece of property approved on this piece of property, the very first development plan, noted that the street access from Todd Road would be temporary. It occurs eight feet from the edge of the interstate bridge. It is not in compliance. It has never been in compliance. It was a temporary access to go on to allow this property. If you look at Polo Club Boulevard, it comes down as a four-lane, divided, nice boulevard that dead ends into a barricade, crosses over and dumps on Deerhaven Lane, runs backwards through a neighborhood, through a back half-built cul-de-sac, who now has a policeman who sits on the corner with a state police car. We've re-zoned it. There have been a number of re-speed zoned the area. It was all temporary. The first plan states it on the face of the plan. This was temporary access to allow this development until the road connection. Now, these pieces are just continuing this on down, and we're adding more and more houses until someone gets killed. Mr. King, I really wish he was here. I meet with him every six months. That first plan, with its temporary access, was approved almost nine years ago. For nine years, we have had all of the traffic and subdivision for Polo Club going backwards through a cul-de-sac in a neighborhood road, not designed to handle that, and you're about to approve three more. Deerhaven Lane is a very unique road. It is one of only four in the entire expansionary master plan designated as a scenic resource. It is a rural scenic road. It has setbacks, there's no piece of property we're going to talk back on it, of 200 feet off of both sides and no new road cuts, yet we keep doing this. I don't object to these plans. I object that we're not complying with something we agreed to nine years ago. Chris King, I wish he was here, would stand and talk about it. He's put it in the budget every year. The developer had agreed to build it. They hadn't. There's been issues with the ownership of the land. Everything's in place. I continue to fight that until we have a more comprehensive plan for the area, we shouldn't continue to add houses in it. And traffic is the big issue. So that's all I really have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Booth. Yes, we have someone else like to speak. Mr. Murphy. Hi, my name is Chris Dodson. I live at 1996 Deer Meadow Trace and my wife, Tabitha. And we represent the Sleepy Hollow HOA for this. Actually, I agree with everything Mr. Booth said, but our primary concern at this time is not the auto traffic, which is a problem. Our primary concern is the pedestrian and bike traffic along Deer Haven from Polo Club all the way back to the Kings Mill Park. It's a beautiful area. As Mr. Booth said, it is a scenic area. The problem is it is our only method to get to our house, and it's a very narrow road. as some background, and there are two blind hills in it where you come up, you know, the grade is sufficient to where when you're coming up on that hill you cannot see anything on the other side. There is, in my opinion, and not being an engineer, there is no safe speed at which pedestrians, bikes, and cars can all coexist on this road. Because if you have two cars, for the most part the road is too narrow for those cars to pass easily. Each one has to have a tire off the road. If you add a pedestrian or a bike in that mix, it's only a matter of time before someone gets killed, and we'd like to see something done before that. We've seen over the last few years, we've lived there since 94 out here, and we've seen the pedestrian and bike traffic pick up continually. And, again, I don't blame them. I mean, it's a very beautiful area to walk and bike in. My concern is safety. and I believe that most of the pedestrian bike traffic is generated by these developments here and also there will be even more generated by the development that's listed later on 2F I guess it is, Mitchell property. But the, so that's the background and the, some other things that will lead to more pedestrian and bike traffic, I believe that the King's Mill, the King property park is going to be developed at some point. That'll make it more attractive. More people will go down there. The biking club already meets down there, so we often see lots and lots of bikers going down the road. And the Brighton Trail and Rails to Trail will be opening onto the King property, and we'll be going from there over to Pleasant Ridge and from there. So that will increase pedestrian traffic and bike traffic that much more. What we'd like to see is on the north side of Deerhaven is a bike or bike and pedestrian path off of the road so that bikes and pedestrians can go down this scenic area safely without being run over by cars. I won't bike or walk on that road because, to me, it's so dangerous. I've been driving along in what I consider a perfectly responsible manner many, many times. You come over the hill, all of a sudden there's a car here and a pedestrian here. What are you going to do? so I don't think it's a safe situation I'd really like to see something done before somebody gets killed there is a lot of police patrol Mr. Booth mentioned that on the road but I don't think that's really the solution because even if you're going under the speed limit it's not safe when you have three mothers with carriages walking three side by side it really scares me as a mom to see that and to know and if you're not a pedestrian if you're just a pedestrian on that road and you don't drive back there like we do all the time, then you don't realize how extremely dangerous it is. But the more they develop and the more houses they put along the road, which we don't have a problem with, that's fine, but we do have a problem with the pedestrians. So I think it is essential that we put a trail from Polo Club to Kings Mill property. Thank you very much, Mr. Miss Dobson. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this plan? Mr. Murphy, I assume you want to give rebuttal? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I represent Deerhaven Properties and North 40 Properties, which is the Clark family, which is the developer of all this area out here. I wasn't planning on speaking on this today. I'm actually here on something else. But I do want to point out to you a little bit about the history of this property. I know Mr. Booth has been here and voiced those concerns in the past, and we're cognizant of those. And I wanted to tell you what we've done to try to address those. We've worked with the city, and I wish Chris King were here too, because he'd tell you what the Clark family, my clients, developers, have done to try to see that that connection was made of Polo Club coming in in the Todd's Road area there. We were fully willing to build that. We met with Mr. King and worked out an informal arrangement where we would do the part on our side as is appropriate. The city would do the other. Chris went to the council, and the council did not fund the city's part of that. We tried that a couple of years. We gave up on that. We decided we had to act on the assumption that that connection wasn't going to be made. The city wasn't going to fund that. And so we had to take other action because this was, in the past tense, was the only way in and out of our subdivision. Marion Clark and Clark family then spent, I think it's, I don't know the exact number, I think it's $2 million to build Polo Club Boulevard to connect all the way to Manowar Boulevard, now we would have to build that eventually but if the other connection had been made that would probably be five years off because it's through areas if you've been out there it's well over a mile there's no subdivision on either side of it we couldn't sell any lots to support it they had to borrow the money to build that divided highway going from our subdivision all the way up to Manowar Boulevard so there is a second way in and out for every person who lives in our subdivision They may choose to use Deerhaven Lane, which they may do, and if it's easier for them, maybe they do use Deerhaven Lane and come out to Todd's Road. But there's a second way paid for at great cost to my clients. It is an exactable item. In theory, that would be a credit to them eventually, but they had to put out the hard cash. They had to borrow against this money to build Polo Club Boulevard coming out there. we had to count on these lots being done in order to fund that and I would point out to you too that these are final subdivision plants that preliminary subdivision plants have already been approved and as you all know what we do when we get a preliminary subdivision plan says okay developer you may now go out and build the infrastructure. You can build the streets, sidewalks sidewalks, storm sewers, roads, and all that sort of thing. And when you come in with a final, it's simply, okay, now that you've spent that money on this area, and all these roads are totally constructed out there, they're built, now that we've done our infrastructure pursuant to our preliminary subdivision plan, now you can go ahead and sell the lots. So we have paid for these roads that you see here in reliance upon this, because we've been doing it under the procedure which is called for. The preliminary has been approved. We've followed through. We've done what we're supposed to do. And now we're asking for the ability to sell lots where we've already built the streets. And in addition to that, we've gone over and above with the considerable expenditure we have done to provide the second way in and out. Now we still hope and we have lended our efforts to try to make that second connection but we went on and we didn't assume that that would be made timely and we've done something on ourselves to provide a second way in and out, very safe way if you've driven Polo Club Boulevard out there in and out to this subdivision so I just needed to put that in context to you as to what my clients have done and they've done it in a down economy too, which makes it even more difficult. But they did it because Marion Clark and her sister and family felt it was important to get that connection made up to Manowar Boulevard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Staff, I guess at this time you have any rebuttal? Okay. All right. We've had a presentation by staff for re-approval of these three plans, Plan 2005-166F, 2005-169F being Unit 1E, and we have revised conditions on that for condition number 9, Plan 2007-156F, subject to the previous eight conditions. If there's no further questions, we'll close this portion of the hearing. I've got a question, Randall, and it's going to either be for staff or maybe Mr. Murphy. if we've now made that connection with Man of War and Polo Club, why do we still have that temporary entrance off of Todd's Road that was only supposed to be a temporary entrance, I'm assuming, until we got something like we've got now? I mean, is that a reasonable answer? I mean, question? It would take. It's a public street. It has been a public street forever. so it would take council-initiated action to close it if that was desired. If they did, okay, because it's a public street when they made it temporary. If it became, well, it was temporary. Sorry, I missed the first part of the conversation. I assume we're talking about the Deerhaven Lane intersection with Todd's Road, which is old Walnut Hill-Chilesburg Road, which has been a public street for a century more. So it would take a closure action to do that. The intent has been that it would be temporary with the new road, exacted roadway taking that over. But again, I think as you heard the testimony, the Council has not ever funded that construction. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Cravens. I'd like to make a motion. You have a question? I was waiting until that question was finished. was finished, I wanted to address my question to Mr. and Mrs. Dodson. And I wondered if you guys had ever spoken with Kenzie Gleason, who is a member of the Division of Planning staff, and she's the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator. She's the one who has been trying to get bicycle trails built throughout the city. I have been to the Rails to Trails Council many times and spoken to Keith Loven, or Loven, I'm not sure how he pronounces his last name. And a couple years back they did mention that the builders would do something, but it's been a while now and it hasn't happened yet. So we thought we would come here and express our concerns to the commission that this is just going to make it even more dangerous. Well, I understand that, and I appreciate that, but we're in a hard place in that it is a dedicated road, it's a public facility, and an individual has the right to subdivide their property. But it sounds to me that there still is some opportunity to improve the situation for public safety in terms of cyclists and pedestrians. And I would start with Kenzie because she's wonderful and very easy to work with and as sharp as a tack and knows exactly who all the contacts are. Okay, thank you. I'm tasking our director's staff person. You know, I'm completely out of my room by doing that, but she's a great person. And I apologize. I'm not familiar with the procedure, but your statement is that Deerhaven Lane is a public way, and so pedestrians certainly do have the right to use it, which we don't debate. but if this isn't the proper place for safety issues with regard to the growth, do you think that Kinsey is? Because, I mean, this is due to the growth. It's not due to a safety issue with the road. It's due to the safety issue due to the growth in the amount of pedestrian and bike traffic. And that's a really good question, and I'm not really in a position to be able to answer that. But the – I just want to put you on the spot. Thank you. That never happens when we're – Yeah, yeah. It's nice to – Well, if, for example, if it were a road that the traffic became unsafe on it, just the auto traffic became unsafe on it, who would we address that to? Because it seems to me to be a parallel issue. If I were in your situation, I would try to find the staff person who deals with it. And I think Kenzie is probably your point person on this particular issue. Start there and have other staff members and, again, help advise where they might go with to have those questions addressed. Perfect. Could you repeat Kenzie's full name for us? Kenzie Gleason in our office, 258-3160. Call and be glad to arrange an appointment. Terrific. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Thank you. Be glad to tell her, please, that I recommended her. Will do. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Mr. Craven, is it you? Yes, I'd like to make a motion for a re-approval for Plan 2005-166F. And if you'd like, I can include these other properties in the same motion. Sure, that would be good. And then the revised staff recommendation for Plan 2005-169F Unit 1E. The first one was Unit 1B. And then re-approval also of Plan 2007-156F, Unit 1M. Okay, we have a motion and a second to re-approve the plans. . As read, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. I think at this time we'll take a five-minute break and reconvene here shortly. Thank you. There were brighter days, never ending There was time and we were burning There were rhymes and we were learning There was all love Two hearts could hold And after all this time You're always on my mind Hey, I could never let it end Cause my heart takes so long to mend The dream that keeps your hopes alive The lonely nights you hold inside And after all this time You're always on my mind I still want you There was rain that we outlasted. There was pain that we got past it. There were last goodbyes still left unspoken. There were ways I should have thrilled you There were days when I could have killed you You're the only love my life has known And after all this time You're always on my mind Hey, I could never let you go A broken heart that heals so slow Could never be for someone new But you're alive and I am too And after all this time You're always on my mind I still miss you And I could never let it in Cause my heart takes so long to mend The dream that keeps your hopes alive The lonely night that you hold inside And after all this time You're always on my mind I still want you And after all this time You're always on my mind I still love you Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if you all are ready to begin again, I'd like to direct your attention to page 7, item B, DP 2008-79, Cardinal Hill Hospital amended. This is a development plan. It is, of course, for Cardinal Hill Hospital, located for Sales Road, Mason-Healy, here. This plan has been postponed for several months before coming to this body. the recommendation or the proposal of this plan. You can see here the existing hospital, existing structure, and this is existing parking as well. They have access here and here. This is right in, right out, only access off for sales road here. Here's an access route through here along with associated parking. The creek sits here, heavily wooded, steep bank down into the creek. In this area, I believe the city has recently been working on a project in that area dealing with flooding and some improvements. This plan was originally submitted to you, had a parking garage located here over top of this very large easement that goes to a KU substation that exists on the property. Since that time, and with this revision, you can see that's gone. They're placing a parking structure in this area. Here is a deck. It will be two decks. There is a mid-level, a lower, and actually three. There's three levels. One level which is at this mid-level, which is grade level with this existing parking. The addition here is 220,000 square feet. That's a little over double the existing size. It's four stories. They are required 727 parking spaces, which is what they're providing. There would have been more had they been able to work out this situation here. So they are providing exactly what they need in terms of parking. This plan has been presented to the Board of Adjustment. There was a need for some variances and particularly a conditional use. Again, an interesting little situation. This was zoned AU. And in order to expand into this area, they needed a conditional use permit on this section of the plan. In the course of review of this plan, and you can see there were a lot of conditions. on your agenda. And we have handed out to you a blue sheet. And it does have, there are a lot of conditions you can see. And staff would like to point out to you that these have always been primarily technical concerns. There have been technical concerns associated with this development. The applicant is very aware of that. The applicants have worked diligently towards addressing those. They have gone to the Board of Adjustment, as I've stated. They've worked with engineering and other bodies of the government to address some of the concerns that were initially brought to their attention. The original plan as submitted was postponed by the technical committee due to these concerns. The revision has helped to address quite a few of those, although it has also raised several others, and I want to bring to your attention some areas that you will see under your conditions where we're talking about some easements and improvements to highways. And that is, when the garage was over here, there was less concern about some of the impacts on Mason Healy. Now, with the garage deck coming here, with the circulation that's going to be created here, with the traffic movement throughout the property, staff became concerned about the impact on Mason-Healy Road. And we have talked with the applicant, and we've talked about expanding Mason-Healy by a right turn lane through here, which would allow for more stacking and deacceleration to turn in here, as well as onto Vercel's Road. And the nice thing about that as well is that that will allow a left-turn movement, a lane through the use of striping, or a left-turn movement into here. We have also talked to the applicant, and it's my understanding that they're very receptive to these ideas about a deacceleration lane here, a right-turn lane, which would allow, of course, for easier movements into this access. I'm sure that many of you, particularly on the subdivision committee, are aware that there's been some issues about the ownership of this property and how that would work, and the applicant is here today to elaborate on that. It's our understanding that those issues are being worked out with the adjoining property owners. and again we have on your revised conditions what we believe are very standard conditions with again just drawing your attention to the addition of improvements to the road frontages and one other slight very small item actually but not uncommon is we're requiring a consolidation plat be filed and approved prior to building permits being issued not certification of the plan we didn't want to hold up the plan but certainly it's valid because the it's a building code issue the building will be straddling a lot line and as you all may recall that that creates a building code a problem for construction but with that if there are any questions be happy to try to answer them thank you mr. Martin I did have one question your comment about the diesel lane on Vercels, would it be in this condition? I understood the decel lane or right turn lane for Mason Healy. It appears to be condition 19, but your comment about a decel lane for Vercels Road, is it in one of these conditions? I see KDOT approval for right turn in, right turn out. Under item 21 on your blue sheet, KDOT approval of right turn lane on Vercels Road. That would be the lane I was referring to. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you sir. Fishner? Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Bruce Simpson here on behalf of Cardinal Hill Hospital. Kerri Gillihan, the President and CEO of Cardinal Hill is seated on the front row here and we also have Chris Howard, engineer with Carmen and Associates. As Tom explained to you, this application has been postponed several times in part because there were issues relative to the access road serving the property right in here. The issue dealt with the right to use it or expand the use of it in connection with the Hodges back here and Cardinal Hill. We have, I'm pleased to say, resolved those differences and that's culminated in an agreement, which I'm pleased to have in my possession, that does provide for Cardinal Hill's access and right to use that access road as depicted on this plan for all of its uses pertaining to the hospital and parking and staff, pedestrian use, et cetera. So that is no longer an issue and no longer certainly the need for any further postponements. We have been to the Board of Adjustment for variances and conditional use. Those were approved last month. Kerry Gillihan will tell you with a great deal of passion how urgent he is and the Board is to get this hospital constructed because of the demand of patient care and the backlog that they have right now, waiting lists, if you will, of people that need the services of Cardinal Hill every day that have to be turned away from the facility. So the need is substantial. It has been substantial for a period of time. Notwithstanding, certainly the board wants to be a good neighbor. It has been a good neighbor for a number of years. Those of us who grew up in Lexington have observed the growth of their facility. and in fact the improvement of the view shed in terms of how that building has evolved in terms of its architecture, this new addition and the parking feature will be no different. They will enhance the look of Cardinal Hill as it exists today. It will be a perfect complement. That's very important to Mr. Gillihan and certainly to the board. With respect to the conditions that the staff has outlined for you, While they may be numerous, we don't believe that any of them stand in the way of our approval. We have done a significant amount of work thus far on stormwater calculations on sanitary sewer capacity. Those preliminary studies were tendered to the Board of Adjustment when the Board considered this case last month. Barry Brock with the Division of Engineering vows that to the extent that we could demonstrate capacity and stormwater compliance issues at this early phase, which is somewhat unusual for an applicant to do, we were in compliance. We will continue to be in compliance and work with the staff on all of those issues. A number of sign-offs obviously have to take place before projects like this are approved. Yesterday, I did meet with the staff and the question was raised or presented to me for the first time about traffic impact on Mason-Healy and Versailles Road. And in consultation with Kerry and Warren Hoffman of the board, we certainly want, again, to be an asset to this section to make traffic flow properly. We want to make sure certainly that the patients and their families are able to move freely and in and out of the property. And so we have pledged to work with the staff, Division of Engineering, to come up with, to the extent it's feasible, there are some issues relative to utilities that are currently located on Mason-Healy and whether or not those would have to be located or whether we can improve, make roadway improvements on top of them that might hamstring our ability to add the lane that's being talked about. But we're satisfied that if you give us approval for this plan, we go forward with more detailed work and calculations about these roadway improvements. Again, we didn't hear about them until yesterday afternoon in terms of the staff's recommendation for them. But we want to look at them, and we want to make this project successful and make it safe and make the public able to travel around it if they're not coming to Cardinal Hill Hospital. So we're in agreement with all of the recommendations for approval. We're here to answer any questions that you have relative to our development plan, the work we have done to date, or the need for this hospital addition to be constructed as soon as possible. So with that, we would ask for your approval and are staying ready to respond to any questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Do we have any questions for Mr. Simpson at this time, Commission? Thank you very much. Do we have anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this plan? Okay. Seeing none. Staff, do we have any additional comments you'd like to add? Okay. Thank you. All right. We will close this portion of the hearing and I'll defer to the Commission for any questions or comments and or a motion. We have a recommendation for approval by staff on the blue sheet, a revised list of recommendations. You've heard the presentation by staff and those of the petitioners. So at this time there's no further comment. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move approval from the revised staff recommendation for DP 2008-79 Cardinal Hill Hospital, which includes 22 conditions. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 8. It is Item C, DP 2008-88, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1. This is a development plan. It's located out on Beaumont Circle with Monarch Street and Lake Crest Circle and Midnight Pass, the bordering streets on the property. It is a 19,000-square-foot office building with a future expansion in this area and associated parking. You can see proposed access here, here, and here. And I have here a big picture for you. Now, it's upside down with the lettering to give it the same orientation. But again, here's Beaumont Circle. Here is their proposed access opposite Wall Street. Here is Midnight Pass and Lakewood Circle, Lake Crest, pardon me. And again, here's the entrance from the Beaumont neighborhood and the Kroger's in that area taking you out. This is the Beaumont Center that would take you to Harrodsburg Road to give you an orientation to that. This was presented to you at your last meeting, and it was postponed. the issue the issue for the staff on this plan came down to this access point staff feels that this access point is unnecessary now it doesn't violate any of the spacing requirements under the subdivision regulations but this is a development plan proposing development on this property. We have Beaumont Circle Drive and it's best illustrated here. You can see the access points that they've been created in this area. Staff feels that this access point creates an unnecessary conflict point. This is a collector highway. It does carry a lot of traffic and it does function well. And they are to be congratulated on the way that this is developed out there in terms the way that this has functioned. And that's another reason we see this as being unnecessary. Every one of the access points that have been developed in this system connect to another system, a supporting system in this area. And we feel this is out of character for the area and, again, unnecessary, creating unnecessary conflict for pedestrians, bikes, and vehicular traffic. And granted, as I'm sure they will be happy to share with you, it's a professional office use in and of itself. It may not generate a tremendous amount of traffic, but again, with the way that this functions as a whole, it's functioned well, and staff doesn't see any reason to hinder that function with this access point. And we have worked with the applicant over the years to create this system. There have been some changes that they've initiated that we've supported that help break up the movement of traffic through the circle to keep it out here and to make sure that these systems as they develop will serve here and not be a cut through. So that is simply staff's concern about this access point. We would recommend that if you did approve this plan, we would recommend it subject to removal of that access point. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Additionally, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. It was two months ago in July at this meeting. We had eight Plan Commission members, and we went to a 4-4 tie on the issue of this access point. last month we had the same eight members so now we have new members and we're here once again Mr. Martin's correct. We do want to point out that we do meet the requirements of the zoning subdivision regulations. We're not asking for any precedent to be set by this. We feel that the fact that we have aligned our access point with Wall Street makes it a very unique situation that's not doesn't happen anywhere else there on the circle that could be saying precedence with everyone trying to get their own driveway. We did, in the two-month time, did a traffic study, met with traffic engineering and staff and discussed that this access point would not have any adverse effect impact at all on the safety of the movements on the street. The lot itself is 5.1 acres. The auto owner's insurance, which was the client he was here at the subdivision committee talking to those of you, they bought what was going to be five different lots when we originally did this. They've put it all on this development plan. They've shown you their first phase and their second phase. They have a lot of land that they're trying to maintain. They purchased this in 2006. They've been sitting and thinking on this property for almost two years now on exactly what they wanted. The plan before you is what they are requesting so they can have their front door, their face on Beaumont Center Circle. And we have, through discussions, we've also agreed that if you do grant us this access point, we would be providing a left turn lane in off of Beaumont Center Circle. This area, we would provide this additional turn lane just so that there wouldn't be as backup in conflict. If you're on Beaumont Center Circle, you know it's divided. It is one lane for bikes, one lane for vehicles going around the intersections. almost all of them have a turn lane to get any traffic turning out of the way of the driving lane and the bicycle lane, both. I don't think that granting us this access point will hinder anyone's movement or create an unsafe situation. And I guess we're down to the point of it's new playing commission members, and if we get to vote again, we'd request that you approve the development plan with the access point. And I'll answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Are there any questions for? My question is just, is the proposal that we have before us include the access point or not? Yes. It does. It does. Yeah, that is items 10 and 11, or discuss the access point in future development. I think how you guys vote today answers 10 and 11 whether the access point is there or not. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Cayley? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this plan? Okay. Seeing none. Mr. Martin, do you have anything else you want to? No, sir. But if it would help clarify the matter for Mr. Brewer, yes, this is the access point that you see on the plan that is the one in question. Yeah. As Rory said, yes, sir, it's the discuss item. Yes. Mr. Martin, I did have one question. if as considering staff's position on not allowing this access, how would you denote, being that we're looking at the plan, what would be condition 10? I would change condition 10 to say delete proposed access to Beaumont Center Drive. Delete proposed access. And then you could drop number 11 as well. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Cayley, you have anything else? All right. Okay, we'll close this portion of the hearing. Are there any questions? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a couple questions, I guess, for staff, maybe Mr. Martin. Are there other possible streets that would align, that would allow, you know, if we do this on the inside of this place, other possible areas that could come into play somewhere down the road? If I understand your question, yes, sir. I believe that as this develops, there could be more interplay within the interior. And one of staff's concerns was if this was allowed, what role would it play in supporting those interior functions as well? I guess my first thought would be right there next to the building where the liquor barn is. there's a street or something right there? Yes sir that drops down a little bit that is a parking area that serves that connects again it connects to Wall Street if we allow this one access that we're talking about is it possible that someone else may come in and ask for access say directly across from that? Yes sir it's always possible that we could get requests for additional access. Okay. What about traffic, safety situations? Well, staff believes it's an unnecessary conflict point. And granted, pure numbers may not reflect that in terms of a study or even traffic. But I think we're all aware that it's highly used. It's a heavily traveled section. It is a collector. And a lot of people use it. And there's a lot of folks that live and shop in the area and a lot of people that move through the area. So that's one of the concerns. And again, as we said in a previous presentation with the bike lane and other modes of transportation that we hope to see more of, that this, in our way of thinking, is just an unnecessary conflict point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Yeah. What happens up there, the next block up? Yeah, right there. In here? Does that connect right there? This connects here to this interior street system, and they have a connection. They do not have an interior connection. They both connect to the interior system. But it doesn't connect out to that other street there? Here? Yeah. No, sir. There is no connection from these properties to Beaumont Circle. So you stated that you didn't think that that situation could happen somewhere else in there, or it couldn't? I think there's potential for people to come in and ask for additional access points. Where would it? I mean, to line up. Well, I mean, obviously here. Yeah, but I mean, the only place that exists where it's opposite another street is right there. That is currently true. Yes, sir. Mr. Brewer? Yes, I believe that the gentleman from EA Partners said that they had done an assessment. there was no significant traffic impact or safety impact. So to me, if they think it's appropriate, they want it, it doesn't violate any of the rules that we have before us, and their experts have said that there's no safety issue, it's a Ural's decision that it shouldn't be there, and their experts are saying that there's no reason that it shouldn't be. Is that correct? Correct to a point, and I would clarify. that when it does meet subdivision regulations, this is not a subdivision. It is a development plan, and you have purview over those design issues in this matter. And staff believes, again, in context of the overall function of the system, the overall design, this is incongruent with that, and it is a potential safety hazard. It may not at this time be a major one. And, again, numbers, sometimes, as much as we all strive to be objective and use numbers in our work, sometimes they don't tell the whole story. I just have one, Mr. Martin. Currently, as Wall Street is there, does that create a conflict point as it is now, or does adding the additional access point just exasperate the problem? We believe it will exasperate any problems that may occur or happen. Now, granted, lining it up is always the best way to do it, certainly. We just don't feel that it's necessary. Tom, the question I want to ask you, and this is for potential, the problems I see potential out there, I mean, Roy just said that they combine three lots or four lots to make that lot. It's my understanding they own this entire area. Okay. Then as you look to the left of that, how many lots or how many potential cuts could we be if we allow this one? Through here? No, on up, from Beaumont Circle. Through here? There, yeah. Oh, well, certainly they could request access here, and we would weigh that in lieu of our standards, and they could request a waiver of the spacing standards on a collector street. But, I mean, how many lots are we talking about? There are three lots here. So we could potentially have three entrances. We could see three requests for that, yes, sir. Okay. I mean, and I've said this before. I mean, and Roy has heard me say it. I just think that that's one of the streets in this city that works, and I just hate to see us make that cut because, and my argument's been the same, there's, you know, when people are looking for a place to turn, it's just a different turn. When you're going to make a left turn or whatever it is, And right now, I go to the post office out there, and everything seems to work, and that's just has always been my problems. I mean, my question is that I cannot, you know, with the way that we've built the interior road system to connect, and again, I just think it would be unwise to let another, just for one business, to connect to that world. Thank you, Mr. Day. Yes, Ms. Copeland. I have several questions. One, what was the motivation for this in five words or less to have this cut through? Five words. Business identity. That's two words. Okay. That's two. I'll save my three for something else. So you want on your letterhead Beaumont Circle, right? They want the address. They want the front door of their building to face out onto Beaumont Center Circle. At subdivision, he was here talking about the users of them, the regional managers are sitting there. And, you know, this is a lot better at Beaumont Center Circle than one of the other streets. So if you had a scales, on this side is the scales of a private interest wanting identity and a letterhead that makes sense. I have a question for the traffic people. What's the speed limit on this roundabout? I believe the speed limit is 35. 35 miles an hour? I believe so. Okay. Has it been your experience that people go a little faster or slower? No, they were going faster than 35 up until we re-striped it. We put the bike lanes in about this time last year. Okay. On which side of the road are the bike lanes? Both sides or just one side? They're both sides. Okay. At 35 miles an hour, what's the cone of vision? What's the distance on cone of vision? I'm not sure exactly what. Well, when you're going down the road and at 35 miles an hour, the faster you go, the smaller your cone of vision. That's what I was taught. And the slower you go, the wider your cone of vision. So what's, are you familiar with that principle? I'm familiar with the principle, but to tell you the truth, I'm not sure what those degrees are. Would you say that it's safe to say that on the inside radius of a limited access roundabout that your cone of vision is shorter? You would need Of course you can see better on a straight roadway Okay, but on the inside Of a roundabout Of that cone of vision Of that radius The circumference, I guess Not the radius But on the inside, you would have a shorter Distance of cone of vision Yes, it would be shorter Significantly if you have a short curve. Make sure I understand the question. You're talking about if the driveway was allowed and people were approaching and trying to turn on to Beaumont Center Circle? No. The Kona Vision? If they're coming around Beaumont Center Circle, you've left Kroger's, and you're on the inside right, on the interior lane, then you would have less vision of what's coming out of that driveway. than if it were across the road. Yes. So that is a more dangerous location than the Wall Street site for entering traffic. Relatively speaking, it would be, I don't like to use the door dangerous in this type of situation. Well, there's less vision. There's less vision. I would be hesitant to call it dangerous. Because, of course, it is on the inside of a circular roadway, which makes you have to basically look further over your shoulder depending on the direction that you're going to go. Or look farther around the corner. Yes. Okay. Okay. We got that. Then the next thing we need to talk about is the cut through from Monarch to Beaumont Center Circle. What's to keep people from just ignoring the intersection at Monarch and Beaumont Circle and just cutting through? so that your perfectly good designed intersection stops working by default and you just come out the new letterhead intersection. I mean, it could happen, right? It could. I mean, if somebody's within the circle and they're on Monarch Street, I'm not sure why that they would go through the parking lot to get to Beaumont Center Circle. Unless traffic was backed up and they wanted to just kind of cut through. Yes, that's true. Okay. And then if you were a biker coming around there, would you take the long distance or the short distance? Would you come around on the interior or the outside? I'm not sure if I'm qualified to answer these questions. I think people, well, not bikers, but walkers. Okay. I think you'd walk the short distance. So I think there's going to be heavier traffic on the inside. That's just my presumption. I have no data on that. But those people would be more at risk. I think Rory or Mr. Kaley may be more actually better qualified to answer some of your questions since their office is right there on Beaumont Center. And he sees it every day. Yes, but that's now, and we're talking about something that didn't even 50% developed. So I don't think we can use today's use as the scale of what's going to happen 20 years from now, which brings up, and thank you, you've helped. But I have other comments. I think there's other kinds of preservation besides old houses. I think when a significant design like this comes before us, if you'll recall, there was a great big heedley farm there. It was maybe 200 plus acres. I don't know. It was just a beautiful piece of Maury silt loam, 15 inches deep. It was our one chance for a circle. And this is it. And it is a jewel of a plant. It works. It is gorgeous. And here we are today talking about chinking away at this Tiffany setting. I don't think we should do it. I think we should preserve this plan. It's elegant. It's as close as we're going to get to Bath Circle in England or DuPont Circle in Washington. I mean, this is our one chance. Let's preserve it. And that's all I've got to say. Thank you. Okay, are there any other questions? We have Mr. Neal down. I know he answered some traffic questions, pedestrian questions, cyclist questions. Is there a motion? Is there further discussion, further questions? If, again, if you decide that the access point is appropriate and acceptable, then of course you would ask that the plan be approved subject to the nine conditions, thus deleting 10 and 11. If you feel that the access point is not appropriate, then you would say approve subject to 10 conditions, deleting 11, and having 10 to say delete proposed access to Beaumont Center Circle. So is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of DP 2008-88, subject to the 10 conditions with number 10 reading, deleting the proposed access to Beaumont Center Circle. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve subject to the 10 conditions changing 10 to say delete proposed access to Beaumont Center Circle and deleting number 11. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Okay. Can we just take a count? Since we had a 4-4 tie I guess the last time, let's take a count here. Mr. Holmes? Ms. Whitman? Mr. Day? Mr. Owens? Aye. Aye. Ms. Phillips. Mr. Cravens. No. Ms. Copeland. Aye. Mr. Brewer. Aye. And Mr. Vaughan. Aye. Seven ayes and three noes. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Rory. All right. The next item on your agenda is on page 8. It's DP 2008-104, Red Mile Square, Track D, Parcel 3. This is a final development plan for property located at 1151 Unity Drive. The property is located just to the south of Red Mile Road, adjacent to the parking lot for the Red Mile racetrack on this side. This plan proposes 17 townhouses and 61 parking spaces on Lot 3. The initial submission for this plan only showed Lot 3, And at that time, there were concerns over whether or not the development could meet the Article 9 group residential provisions. The engineer brought in an additional plan, which has incorporated Lot 2 into the plan, which has basically allowed them to meet the setbacks that were here when this was the property line for the project. With the incorporation of this lot, they no longer have that constraining them, and they meet their setbacks for Article 9 in this way. The open space for the group residential is provided in this area. There is a closed contour on this property, and it relates to one of the conditions we've brought up on the revised conditions on your pink sheet. The subdivision committee recommended approval of the revised plan at the last meeting, and the staff has since revised the list of conditions. There are now 21 conditions, and number 19 is the one relating to denote the existing sinkhole or closed contour topographic information on lot two. That would likely be the location of detention and most of the open space for this property, but we do need to know information about the closed contour on that site make sure there is no single issue there. The other conditions relate to the privacy fence near the southern boundary of the property. There is a fence here that is interior to the property line that the developers agreed to maintain and leave there as additional buffering for the single-family residential just beyond that area. This time I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any questions for Mr. Taylor at this time? Thank you, sir. Petitioner? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Andy Holmes with Midwest Engineering, and we represent the developer of the project. We are in agreement with the revised list of conditions you have before you. I would comment on number 19, that this closed contour. We were also the firm that did the plans for the previous phase of this townhouse development for the same developer, and that close contour didn't present any sinkhole issues at that time, and I don't expect that anything's changed in the past 10 years to change that. So we are comfortable with the conditions of approval. We've reviewed those with the developer, and he's also acquiescent to those, so we would request approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Are there any questions for Mr. Holmes? Okay, I see some folks here in the audience. Anyone wishing to speak to this plan? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. I guess we'll close this portion of the hearing. Commission, any questions, comments, motion? I'll make a motion to approve DP2008-104 as revised on the pink sheet. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve DP 2008-104 per the revised conditions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. item F, DP 2008-114, Mitchell property, a portion of Cope, Mitchell, and Cooper. This is a final development plan for property located at 1290 and 1340 Deerhaven Lane. The subject property is on Deerhaven Lane between Polo Club Boulevard, which is to the west, and the interdiction that used to allow connection of what was the Walnut Hill-Charlesburg Road. Beyond the interdiction to the north and east of this site is Walnut Grove Lane and some of the plats that we saw earlier in this meeting. The subject property consists of two lots, a five-acre lot at 1340 that is currently vacant, and 1290 Deer Haven, which is approximately 10 acres in size and has one single-family residence at this location on the property. The development plan proposes a total of eight dwelling units on this 15 acres with a new street intersection to Deerhaven Lane and a new driveway intersection for one of the units at 1340 Deerhaven Lane. This property is in an expansion area one zone. That is a zone that allows up to three units per acre. However, this area is also in a scenic resource area, and by the zoning ordinance, development in those areas are restricted to a maximum of three units per every five acres. There is a provision for the difference in those densities for the density to be exported to other areas of the expansion area. According to this plan, that information is not on the plan. You'll see that's one of our conditions. being recommended here. This is a plan that went through the technical committee review and was recommended for approval. Shortly after that meeting, it was discovered that the floodplain information on the plan is not correct. If you look at the plan, the northern part of the property is identified as floodplain, wherein comparing to the FEMA maps that are about to become effective, the center portion of the property is where the existing floodplain is. As a result, a number of conditions were added to this plan in order to correct that information. You can tell some of the buildable areas are in the floodplain. Not only is that a problem, buildable areas within 25 feet of the floodplain are not permitted. So a number of the conditions that you see on your agenda, which were present at the time the subdivision committee reviewed this development plan, are related to that. The first seven conditions and also condition number 10 are very standard conditions, sign-offs, and revisions to notes that are proposed. Conditions number 11 and 14 are primarily related to the floodplain information and the need that there be a resolution to the buildable areas on this development to account for the true location of the floodplain. Backtracking a bit to condition number eight, through the technical review, there was a desire that if there would be a street here, there would be a temporary. If there is a street constructed, that there be a temporary turnaround to allow solid waste and other vehicles to access back out the road to Deerhaven Lane. Condition number nine refers to the requirement that there be a 100-foot setback from the rural service area. The rural service area is on a corner of this property, and there is a requirement that there be a 100-foot setback in addition to landscaping requirements in that area. Also, those landscaping requirements are needed to be added to this plan as well. There are a number of options available for that. Condition number 12 refers to the fact that the buildable areas are not proposed along the right-of-way of the road, so we need to account for driveways or other access to the buildable areas on this plan. Condition 13 is designed for the five-acre tract portion of this plan. Only one dwelling unit is proposed on this five acres. So one of the main thrusts of this plan is to recapture the two units that would otherwise be allowable and account them on the 10-acre tract, which is doable via development plan. However, when this development occurs, any house on this lot should be required to tie into the sanitary sewer as part of the development. Staff's understanding is the 5-acre tract is what's prompting this development plan, and that it is intended initially to be constructed with septic, as sanitary sewer is a number of hundred feet north of Deerhaven Lane in this vicinity. Condition 15 refers to the difference in density as to how many units will be transported off this site through density transfers. We'd like that denoted on this plan. In addition to exaction information, which is the following condition, exactions are required for each of the buildable areas on this development plan, and we would like this plan to apportion those among the different development units. 17, staff's understanding is that there will only be one dwelling unit for each of these buildable areas. We'd like that clearly denoted on the plan. In addition, whether or not the one unit at 1340 will eventually have driveway access to the west to the new public street that is planned as part of this. Condition number 19 refers to the width of the right-of-way and the pavement of the proposed street. There is a provision of the land subdivision regulations that allow the street to be as narrow as 23 feet within a 30 foot right of way. And that provision is due to the fact that each of these buildable areas is a minimum of 100 feet in width. That is a special street standard that is applicable to lots that have very large frontages. That is applicable here. That is an important consideration to the staff on this plan because part of the expansion area requirements, mandate that at least 80% of this land area remain in open space. And according to the open space calculations, the street area has not been deducted from open space. So if that right-of-way narrows, there is more land available to open space. These buildable areas will need to shrink in size to ensure that the 80% open space requirement can be met. And that is condition number 20 that you see on the list. Basically, the street right-of-way is not accounted for in the statistics. Finally, 21st condition, there is a wetland area that's been identified for a portion of the property on the southern edge of the 10-acre tract. As you can see, there is development proposed in that area. That will require one of two things, either that the development plan be modified to stay out of those areas or the appropriate 401 and 404 permits be obtained and documented prior to any development. of that portion of the property. Your subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan subject to the 21 conditions. Before concluding, Mr. Martin has prepared the expansion area compliance report, which I believe you have at your places. I think he will present that to you at this time. There are a few additional conditions recommended as part of that report. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as Mr. Salley pointed out on this gold sheet, you have an EAMP compliance report for this property. And the report is required by Article 23B-5C of the Zoning Ordinance, and where we evaluate statements submitted by the applicant along with the plan to measure its compliance with our expansion area master plan. And there is some obviously overlap, considerable overlap, and some redundancy in the subdivision committee recommendations that you see in the staff as well as the plan. The important thing on the plan, we review land use. And as Bill pointed out, that's the density primarily in the residential. And in that regard, this plan does meet with the density that they are proposing. It is fully in compliance with the land use element for this area. The community design element is another element that we review. And it addresses the scenic overlay and the rural road and those types of issues. And in this regard, in reviewing the plan, we find that they have identified some of these things. There's a setback, the 200-foot, and they've identified the floodplain and those things. And as Bill pointed out, however, those are inaccurate. And, in fact, there is some information missing. So in that regard, there's a bit of compliance with the plan, but the inaccuracy of the information is such that the plan is not fully in compliant with the community design element of the expansion area. And then the infrastructure element is another important evaluation. The expansion area plans, when they deal with infrastructure, they're generally talking about the collector roads, the drainage systems, the sewer systems, trunk lines, the major elements. This plan does not require a trunk line or collector street. So in that regard, it's not required to do those things, so it would be compliant. However, targeted in the drainage study, the stormwater study for this area and for the expansion area, there is a regional detention basin required on this property. This plan does not designate that detention basin. Now, it has area for it. It's there. And the applicant, we have talked with them about it, and they're aware of that. But their plan does not address that. And their initial submission did not address it as well. They have given us a new submission where they have attempted to address that by stating that it will be on the property. But as you can see, it's not on the plan. And so what staff has found that they are not complying with that aspect of the infrastructure element. And so the conclusion is, yes, they partially comply, but there are serious deficiencies in the information that has been provided that prevents them from fully complying with the AMP requirements. And we do have some conditions that you can see at the bottom of this page that would help address that. They are, as I said, similar to, and you'll find perhaps some redundancy with the subdivision committee's recommendations. But they certainly need to correct the floodplain information and add the wetlands information. That's vital to evaluating this plan. They would need to revise the buildable areas and local streets to remove those conflicts. Or as Mr. Salee pointed out, they would have to document that they've received the proper permits and authorizations to build in these areas. We would like that they denote on this plan that the regional detention basin will be located where it will be located on this plan. And then we also supported the requirement that they provide a temporary turnaround on that stub street that you see under your conditions. again as Mr. Salley explained as it comes through in order to provide public services some sort of turnaround needs to be provided for the solid waste fire and that sort of thing oh and with that I'll be happy to answer any questions Thank You Mr. Martin, Mr. Salley I do have one question the regional detention basins noted on the EMAP should it also be on as a condition did I miss that on condition of the if you uh oh would you okay it is located under your subdivision committee recommendations okay you will find on and there's a lot of them you'll have to forgive me after count thank you first of all we have the urban county engineers acceptance okay which certainly will cover that but we've also asked them to identify stormwater basin locations proposed that's under 11. And then on your EAMP compliance report, Mr. Chairman, we are also asking that they denote that on the plan. So it's kind of a, it's the same condition twice, so that it's very clear that they need to give us that information. Thank you, sir. I overlooked that. My apologies. Ms. Copeland, you have a question? I just have a question. Tell me again about the floodplain. I understand it's changed, but I don't see where it was. I mean, Obviously it got bigger, right? Yes, absolutely. The flood plan I did not mention, and I apologize to you, is shown in the blue cross-hatching. That is from the FEMA maps. That just came out. They're about to become effective, I believe, next week is the effective date. The original information, which dates back to the date of the zone change and the preliminary development plan is from this line back to Deerhaven Lane. It has a gray hatching on the drawing. I apologize for not making that clear during my remarks, but that is the difference in the floodplain information. For instance, there is an area between the 200-foot building line and the road that is not in the floodplain. The property slopes down and then back up from front to back. Thank you, sir. Mr. Siley, those two units that are in the revised floodplain, they'll be removed? Absolutely. That is a requirement. The one can certainly be made smaller on the five-acre track. The other two, there's no option but to relocate those. And what was the yellow part or the lower part down there underneath the road? This area? Uh-huh. That is an identified possible wetland area according to the regional stormwater study. Thank you, Mr. Salli. Any other questions for Mr. Salli and Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Phillips, I'm sorry. Possible wetlands, the boundaries of that area have not been flagged yet by a consultant? They have been mapped by a consultant, yes. Okay, but they haven't been flagged in the field so that we know what we're working with? I doubt they've been flagged in the field. That is, in essence, a 10-acre lot with one residence on today. I'd be very surprised if there's any markings in the field to that. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, good evening. It's not afternoon anymore, it's gone running late. I'm Fred Easterz with Sherman Carter Barnhart and I'm here with Mark Mitchell, sitting in the front row, who is the owner of the property. Just some history on this. Back in 2004, Mr. Mitchell and his two neighbors on either side went together, Mr. Cope and Mr. Cooper, and got their properties rezoned to EAR1. And with that, they have established a new zone from the AU. On this property, like has been said, is that this has a scenic overlay. So the density on the property is limited to three units per five acres. Since 2004, it was rezoning, nothing's happened on the property or anything. And Mr. Mitchell has just here in the past months, past months has had interest in his stand alone five acre tract that a family wants to buy it and develop it as a single family residential lot. With With that, Mr. Mitchell wanted to put a plan together, this one right here, that transferred the one and a half units that was available on this over to his property where he has his existing house here and is living in it. And at some future date, the one and a half units would be valuable to the sale of his property if it ever did develop. We prepared our plan, and I've been taking a lot of reviews. I feel like that my plan's inaccurate. As of today the plan is accurate because the flood plan has not been adopted by FEMA and it will be adopted by the 17th. And definitely two months ago when the plan was filed, the plan, the flood plan was accurate. I have no problem with updating the flood plan with the new flood plan boundaries and showing that. But I'm not in error. It's still where the flood plan is today and if you went to get a mortgage on this, this is where they would show it. But in the 17th there's going to be the new floodplains. The new floodplain has been worked on since 2000. The Lake Superior County Government had the updating of the floodplain maps. FEMA, it was submitted to FEMA. FEMA chose not to adopt them. So I just want to make sure that's clear because I feel like I got a bad rap from the staff on this. Also in the expansion area plan there's a stormwater management plan that was prepared by a local consulting firm. They went out and looked at areas, looked at the total sites and determined where regional detention basins could be located to stop this birdbath creation that we've been doing ever since I've been in business for 30 years. Because every lot has their own little detention basin, how they interact together, how they're drying up the watersheds and drying up the soil and the water table is a problem. So they did get together and do this. It was shown and it's shown that the dam would be here where the road is and it does extend back onto Mr. Mitchell's property and this property here. Which is fine, we'll show it but Mr. Mitchell is taking an undue hardship since it's located on his property totally almost and helped hurting his land. The only saving grace of it is the consultant did realize that that was a problem and they They have designated the detention basin to fall within the boundaries of the floodplain. And Mr. Mitchell has agreed that yes he understands that and he accepts the conditions and that the detention basin is not going to be, thank goodness, one of these typical dig out the detention basins that you see. It's going to be one that we're going to utilize the existing contours, the existing conditions of the land. We're going to build a detention basin dam here with outlet structures that will control the peak flows and the flows, but it will utilize and back up water in the existing floodplains. And so therefore the natural vegetation, the natural soils, the natural conditions will stay the same. That's the good thing. All this plan is doing is what we want to do. Mr. Mitchell doesn't have any plans right now to develop this or do anything. He has a client that was looking forward to buying this piece of property which the law department has said that the client can come in and buy this piece of property right now and get a building permit for a single family residential house. All Mr. Mitchell wants to do is transfer the one and a half units over to his property to save that units. Because these, the people that want to buy this want to retire there they said they want to live there and make it their home for the rest of their lives here as long as they're able to live in Lexington. There's going to be some talk about white guarantees that this somebody won't come back in the future date and want to get another house unit on this. What it is is that after this price of property loses its buildable rights and only has one on it, they cannot get that back unless they own additional property here where they can transfer that building unit from another piece of property to this piece of property. So that's going to be a comment. Also there's a comment about the Deerhaven Lane traffic. Deerhaven Lane is designated as a scenic corridor. We have a 200 foot setback from it that will be supposed to protect the scenic corridor keep it as in its natural condition. The other thing is that the improvements to Deer Havenland they're not requiring, they do not require widening or changing of it because that will change the character of the area. We have eight units and one unit and then we have other properties on both sides that have units. So I don't, I see and we're agreeable. We're going to, I know the thing about it is in the expansion area plan they've always pushed and promoted clustering of homes. We have provided some quite large areas here for homes to be built in. I don't know if anybody built 109 by 110. We'll compact these down to more reasonable sizes, get them all on the sides. There was a question asked about the wetlands. They went out and looked at these areas, they're suspicious of wetlands, they haven't been actually determined as wetlands. But what we'd like to do is try to keep these areas out of the buildable area. And if at such future time that Mr. Mitchell wants to develop this, he can hire a specialist and come and look at these and actually determine where they are. And then at that point he can amend his development plan to readjust his buildable areas. At this time we don't want to do that. We would just assume that these are the water. This is the proposed wetland. We'll cluster or develop development out of these sensitive areas. Because Mr. Mitchell at this time, I'm going to say it one more time, doesn't want to go into the money or the expense of trying to do actual engineering and trying to prove and show where the actual areas are. We'd just assume keep out of the area, move, do our possible development in that area which might not happen. And I'm sure that if anybody does buy the property, they'll have their own ideas, townhouses or something like that, that they'll want to put in. I would like to ask for approval of the plan. We will, after this meeting, we will change our plan and submit it to, for sign-offs to the different agencies. There's nothing on the list that is not tolerable by us. We're more than glad to accomplish everything on this. There is one thing that Mr. Mitchell does want is that there's a statement on here about this single family. These people would like to keep their access road out, their driveway out this way, which can be accomplished. And not tied into the main road whenever, if this is ever built. So again, I would like to ask for approval of the plan, subject and conditions. And thank you very much for listening to me. Thank you, Ms. Eastridge. Ms. Phillips, do you have a question? I had a question for you. Yes, ma'am. I asked about the possible wetland areas, but that road that's going to be built through the floodplain, I mean the floodplain is absolutely a wetland area that you will have to get 401 and 404 certification. They will. And I'm wondering about the driveway. The driveway will have to go through the same thing. They'll have to get a permit from the Division of Water for encroachment and fill into a floodplain, number one. They'll have to look at the wetland situation through the state and through the Corps. long as we're clear on that because we said that's a possible wetland but we all know that the floodplain is definitely a wetland and therefore it didn't have to be. And they'll have to get permits for a private driveway and a culvert. And the buyers understand that they are very diligent people. They were very educated when they came to Mr. Mitchell and I think the staff and everybody can tell you that they have frequented this halls on finding out information on what needs to be done. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for Mr. Eastridge? Mr. Booth, I think you'd like to make a comment? Again, Dave Booth, 1940 Deer Haven Lane. I actually live down at the end where the interdiction is. That's my front yard. You know, I think you have an opportunity here, and I'm a little concerned this being a final development plan with very little left on it that's going to look like what it shows right now. Basically, I see one, two, three, four, five, six, eight buildable areas, four of which have to move. So half of the buildable areas are not in compliance. Basically, and I'll take the microphone, we show clearly these two are in wetlands. This one clearly is not within the 100-foot setback from the urban services area. This one is, and it's noted on the building line, but it's part of its envelope. In addition, we don't have a stormwater retention basin shown. We don't have any permitting. We've got a wetland. All of this overlaid on top of one of four designated scenic roads in the area, 200-foot setback. This is the highest, most difficultly developed land. It's got the scenic resource overlay. It's EAR1. It's expansion area master plan. I'd really like to quote one of the staff members. He said it's partially compliant. I think partially compliant means we need to see another set of plans, ones that are compliant, because this is my last chance for public comment. I don't get to see what comes after this. I don't get to see that they made those adjustments. I was the one that called the Planning Commission and brought up this 100-foot setback. It had not been noted before my call. I've been active in this. I've been involved. I do want to state from a start, too, I really don't object to the plan. It's Mr. Mitchell's a neighbor of mine. It's a developable area. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with what is trying to be done and the whole concept here because we've got open space issues. And the reason this plan's up is this person wants to buy this piece of property. And I think this needs to be clarified for him in the future, on the record, that he has a floodwater retention basin in his front yard, that he has wetlands, that he has a setback, and when he takes his four-and-a-half acres that he thinks he's buying, he's not going to be able to do anything with it regarding a future development or any of those things. Now, the concept of having two lots up here and one plan, that's fine. I understand that. But with the whole reason for this coming forward to sell this lot off, when this one's clearly not in compliance, I can't see how we can approve that plan without asking for a postponement until we get a drawing that actually shows what this is going to look like. You've got some of the largest restrictions you've got in the entire EAMP sit on this piece of property. Setbacks, scenic resource road overlays, scenic resource overlay, we've got all those requirements and we've got a plan that doesn't meet. It's partially compliant. And I like to note that we have 21 restrictions on eight lots. That's the most restrictions today in this meeting of any plan that's come before you. I can't believe that. I mean, it should be a simple development plan, put the places where they belong, show it as it should be done, and go on. You know, I'm very concerned when this person buys this, does he realize that this is open space in his front yard, that that's not his. Because this open space is to make the density correct for the whole piece of property. He can't put a fence up here and say, well, that's my land. No, I'm buying a five-acre lot, but this whole front half of it is open space so this development can happen. I think that's at issue. That's my objection again. I just think we need to set a plan that is correct, not one where I can actually see a plan that's right and make comments on a right plan. And I'm more than willing, if one comes before here that meets those requirements, to say that's fine. I agree with it. But one like this, with all of the changes where half of the lots are improperly located, where you've got wetlands, I don't see it. I don't think you can approve it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Booth. Does anyone else would like to make a comment to this plan? Okay, seeing none. Staff, do you have any rebuttal? Petitioner, do you have any rebuttal? No, sir, I have no rebuttal. Of course, we'll be glad to answer any questions from the commission. Answer any questions, okay. Petitioner, do you have any rebuttal? My statement is is that the buyers are very aware of what they can do and can't do on this property. It's not buyer beware, these buyers are very informed. I met with them for eight hours over a three day period. The talk about situations and problems on the property and they've been down here at the staff so I guarantee these developer, developer of this house, the owner of this house is very aware of what's going on. Again, when this plan was submitted and right now this plan is correct because it matches the FEMA floodplain as it is today. I'm agreeable and Mr. Mitchell is agreeing to wait and to accept the adopted floodplain if it's adopted on the 17th to change it to show this and the detention basin. So I'm really kind of sensitive about that because we do understand and we do research our work. And we don't have any problem with it and we always know what we're doing. So what do we do? We don't give our clients land away. But Mr. Mitchell is ready to acknowledge at this point in time that the floodplain is to be adopted. And he will change the plan to meet that. Thank you, Mr. Eastridge. Okay, are there any questions from commission? Mr. Booth, you have rebuttal? Yes. Okay. I'd just like to make one more comment. You know, he said the buyer is aware. The person has not purchased the property yet. So maybe that person is aware, but he is not the buyer. He has not bought it. I'm trying to bring this up that why don't we show the plan correctly in case that person doesn't become the buyer. Let's get a correct plan. If they're amenable to do this, let's do it and do it right where there's public comment on it, where people can see a correct plan, not a, well, it's going to look something sort of like this, but we're going to move everything around to make it compliant. That's all I'm asking. Postpone this, change it, disapprove it. That's what I think the appropriate action is. Thank you. Thank you. I can understand his comments and things. I acknowledge it. What I'd like to do is ask for a two-week postponement on the plan to be heard at the zoning hearing. At that time, we'll have the plan changed and resubmitted to the staff for the review. Okay. Sorry to take all your time. Oh, no, that's what these hearings are for. So at this time, we'll close this portion of the hearing. Scopeland, do you have a question? No, no. What we'll do is I've asked for the plan to be postponed for two weeks to be heard at the zoning hearing. Excuse me. Excuse me. That would be a continuance because we have started the hearings. Yeah, we have started. I'm sorry for my... That's okay. Just wanted to make sure the record showed everything that's been testified to today would be part of the record. Okay. It's a continuance. It asks for a continuance so that we can change the plan and then resubmit it to the staff for their review, and then they could report at the zoning hearing. Zoning hearing. If you ought to mind. Okay. I know it's your time and you're valuable. I can ask the commission if that's the concurrence of the commission. So, and I guess a lot of, we need to actually take a vote on that for a continuous, correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we continue this item until September 25th. And do I need to articulate DP 2008-114? Okay, we have a motion and a second for continuous on DP 2008-114. I had a question. One of the issues is the revised FEMA plans. Now, will they be available by the 25th? Mr. Holmes, we can provide you copies of those maps at that time. May I add information to that? Well, there's a motion on the floor. I'm sorry. I was just going to say that the floodplain maps are available online. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any other question? Okay, all those in favor of the continuous, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, while the staff is getting set up, I think if I could ask for a motion on the call for bonds and letters of credit. You have a memo dated September 11th. If we could obtain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for the release and call the bonds on the September 11th, 2008 memo. Second. We have a motion and a second for a release and call of bonds. All those in favor, please signify the saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Okay. Mr. Chairman, if you'd like, we could take care of the other commission item while we're setting up. Yes, sir. The other commission item that we have is that as commission is aware that we've received that request, we received info that two appeals that we had for the center point appeal at the courthouse area, those two appeals have been withdrawn. That is correct. We've received written verification of the withdrawals. Of withdrawals. And I think we had set aside a meeting, special meeting for September 18th. Now that those appeals have been withdrawn, that would revert back. Well, we need to take a vote to our motion and a vote to remove that special meeting from our docket. Correct. You amended your official meeting and filing schedule to set a special hearing on that date. staff would suggest that a motion would be appropriate to again amend your meeting and filing schedule to cancel that special hearing and we will continue the public notice that goes along with that. The only issue to decide is whether you feel you would need a work session or whether you'd like to give yourself a well deserved I might add day off from Thursday afternoon. Not everyone pulled my arm at once. The chair and I I've had a conversation and I will tell you there is no immediate item that the staff feels that we need your attention on for that meeting. We could certainly fill your afternoon with meaningful conversation if you so chose. So with that said, is there a motion to cancel or amend our official schedule to cancel next week's meeting? Is that proper? Mr. Chairman, I move to amend our official schedule and cancel the special meeting of September the 18th, 2008. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. And does that also include then canceling of the work session that would have been scheduled in its place? Yes, it does include the cancellation of the work session. I thought I heard that in your motion. Thank you. Thank you. Motion carries. And if the commission is ready, I'm ready. We're ready, Mr. Simmons. Our next item is on page 11 of your agenda. This is ZOTA 2008-6. This is an amendment to our B4, I1, and I2 zones to allow adaptive reuse of our wholesale and warehouse buildings. Before I get started, first of all, I've passed out a few things to you. I've passed around a few maps of the area, which is just a smaller version of the map that I have up on the board. I've passed out a packet with the brown that has our revised staff report. Behind that is the proposed text. And then in the spirit of colored handouts today, I have a green handout that has a few revisions for the staff that we'll talk about at the end of this. Also, before I begin my presentation, I would like to pass out to the commission to pass around and for the record. We have received three letters supporting the proposed tax amendment, one from the Bluegrass Trust, one from the Fayette Alliance, and one from Harold Tate with the Downtown Development Corporation. I'll pass those out to Mr. Brewer and pass them around during the hearing. I do have a brief presentation. I'd like to kind of talk about this text amendment in general terms first, go through our staff report and some of the specifics in the text and then finally end my presentation with the few proposed changes that we do have today. First of all, I always have to remember where to turn this. I just kind of want to talk a little bit about the intent, why this is being proposed. This is a text amendment that was proposed by Pepper Distillery LLC. that's headed up by Barry McNeese, who is here today. And I've said this before, but I want to say it now that we're at the public hearing. The staff truly appreciates Mr. McNeese and his development team on this text amendment. They've shown an extreme amount of cooperation with the staff on developing this text amendment that is before you today. As we look at this, of course, the intent of an adaptive reuse ordinance is to encourage the redevelopment and an adaptive reuse of older structures. We did have a question in our Planning Commission work session whenever we were talking about this is, do we have a definition for that? The applicants have responded by adding a new definition to Article 1 of our Zoning Ordinance for adaptive reuse. It's very similar to other adaptive reuse definitions from other cities and around the nation. It does work for our city. I also want to point out that this text amendment as it's proposed, an adaptive reuse project, would be a special provision in our B4, I1, and I2 zones. That's our wholesale and warehouse, light industrial and heavy industrial zones. It is not intended to be an adaptive reuse of residential structures. This is really geared towards those older industrial major infrastructure that's out there that's just basically sitting vacant and trying to get some of those uses in there. The main thrust of this Texas Amendment is to allow additional uses. in addition to those uses that would be allowed by the base, either B4, I1, or I2 zone. The additional uses could be offices, retail, entertainment, housing. There's a whole mixture of uses that are allowed in these, that would be new uses allowed if it was in part of an overall adaptive reuse project. And I use that term as a project because it could be, whenever it comes to you, it could be as simple as one building on one lot that's going for an adaptive reuse, or it could be essentially an overall area that's brought to you on one cohesive development plan that potentially you could have contiguous properties, properties across the street, that kind of thing as you look at the overall area. for this. I am still not used to this thing yet. There are some, I wanted to kind of talk about some of the protections that are built into this. The first and foremost would be that a final development plan is required for any adaptive reuse project. So it will get a review by the Planning Commission. It is, as it's drafted, it's for the areas that are inside or adjacent to the in-film redevelopment area. The map that you've got kind of passed around showing the purple and the blues and everything like that, that does show all of the lots that could potentially benefit from this tax amendment. It does not mean, this map does not mean that every property out there is going to be able to meet all of the criteria or even should meet all of the criteria for an adaptive reuse project. But this kind of sets the playing field of those possible properties that could be doing it. I think it's important we do have in there that at least one building in an adaptive reuse project will be adaptively reused as a principal structure. One of the very first things that we thought about, well, you know, if somebody's got a lot and they save the shed on the back of the lot, can they stick a fast food restaurant out in the front and call in an adaptive reuse? And the answer is no. The buildings that are being adaptively reused have to be reused as principal structure. So another thing that is in there is that the applicant is an adaptive reuse is intrinsically tied back to our comprehensive plan. The applicant has to provide justification on how their adaptive reuse project will tie back into the comprehensive plan. And there are several criteria that they have to meet a certain number of criteria in order to even qualify for the adaptive reuse project. I think it's those criteria that we will hear the most about today whenever we get into discussing our actual text. Another thing that's very important, the staff, the Division of Planning, is committed to this text amendment, to reviewing it, the ongoing review that we give all of our in-film redevelopment text amendments. Basically every year we look at our text amendments and our zoning ordinance text and try and make sure that we are getting the type of quality and the compatibility in our development that we are wanting to see. And for those areas where we're getting development that we don't want, we try to close up those parts of the ordinance. And for those areas where we're seeing hindrances to the type of development that we do want, we try to open those up. So that is a very important aspect of this proposed text amendment, even though it's not in the text amendment language. I want to talk a little bit about the design criteria. because there's very little design criteria. Much of the whole concept of our adaptive reuse is that the market forces will be driving much of the redevelopment of these areas. We do have recommendations on maximum heights. The maximum height would be 48 feet, which would essentially allow a four-story structure. or if you already have structures that are above that, you would be allowed to go 12 feet higher than the tallest structure. It's an either-or, whichever is greater kind of situation. So the 12 feet is essentially one more story higher than that. What we did not want to start is where the buildings that are being adaptively reused are dwarfed by all new buildings and everything like that. I've really talked all along about having the adaptive reuse buildings essentially being the anchor of an adaptive reuse project. We also talked about parking. In general, the parking required for an adaptive reuse project will be about half of the parking required for those types of uses elsewhere that we have them in the zones. That's very important. I think both to the applicant, I'll let them speak for themselves, but it's also important getting back to that concept of allowing the market forces to try and drive the adaptive reuse. I highly suspect that whenever we do get adaptive reuse projects based on the tenants that are going in there, we will probably see more parking requested than our minimum required. But at the same time, our catch-all is that we are not just letting it go with no parking. We are requiring some amount of parking to make sure that these uses do have an adequate amount of parking. The last thing, that we only have one new conditional use that would be part of an adaptive reuse project, and that would be drive-through facilities. That is one of our number one ways of essentially controlling suburban-type development and controlling your typical corporate models in through there. And that's not what we are intending with this project. Of course, with the base zoning, there are some conditional uses that would be allowed to carry forward, and that would just have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis with the Board of Adjustment. And another one of the things, as I mentioned earlier, we talked about the criteria, and these are essentially the good things that will make this adaptive reuse project something to go. They're all basically providing incentives for good design, smart growth. And I'm going to reiterate it again. One of the protections in the design criteria is that the Planning Commission will have your review over the site control and a development plan as you do and have all of the rights and protections that you have when you're normally reviewing a development plan. I just wanted to kind of run through quick things here. Where will it potentially be used? And we've got the map here, which doesn't show up too well on ELMO here. but I did want to kind of run through just a few pictures the first pictures of course I concentrated on the distillery district because that is the applicant this is Manchester Street they've got a large warehouse here and the actual distillery is here and you can see there's a lot of different buildings in through there but this whole area will likely be your first adaptive reuse project that comes before you. This is also looking at Manchester Street right in through here. This is the old tar distillery that the applicant has brought to you before as an industrial mixed-use project. These provisions do not replace the industrial mixed-use project provisions that we have there. And the main difference is that over time, we might decide to combine the two or get rid of one or the other. The industrial mixed-use project would allow in an industrial zone essentially to wipe the site clear and build all new, whereas the adaptive reuse projects require the keeping of a certain amount of that infrastructure that's out there. And just a little closer picture of some of the buildings that are already being adaptively reused as part of our one and only industrial mixed-use project that we have approved today. This is also another site that I've really been thinking about as we've been going through this text amendment. This is the site with Loudon Avenue and Bryan Avenue. A lot of people might recognize this building right here. And essentially, this is where they park the buses. That's a building that I believe is highly underutilized. Other landmarks in the area is the large ice house. And right down Loudon Avenue is the large, I don't even know what the name of this building is, but the large five-story brick structure there that would be a potential site that could benefit from this adaptive reuse text amendment. I also wanted to point out the National Avenue area. We've got Winchester Road, and this is National Avenue. And you can see there's essentially an older warehouse area. I believe you'll hear today from some of the representatives that have been going into that area and have been rehabbing that and they have been very interested in this adaptive reuse text amendment also. I believe that's all for my general comments. I would like to go over just a few things. I won't take up too much more of your time. The staff is recommending, as you can see, on your agenda and in our revised staff report, We are recommending approval of the text because we found, you know, there's six and probably even more goals and objectives of our comprehensive plan that this will further. We've got 11 goals and objectives specifically called out that specifically talk about adaptively reusing and rehabilitating areas and everything like that. Furthermore, you know, as I've mentioned before, it is smart planning. It breathes new life into old areas. It takes up some of that. It costs less resources because you're not totally tearing down buildings and rezoning properties. You're able to kind of use some of that existing infrastructure. Going through the actual proposed text, this is, it's in a slightly different format, but this is the text that was approved by our zoning committee on September 4th, about a week ago. What I've done in there, since there was some confusion at that meeting about whether something was an addition to our zoning ordinance or an amendment to existing ordinances, I've gone through, and you can see on each one of these, I've categorized this, the change that we're making to Article 1 and the change that we're making to the B4 zone, the I1 and the I2 zone. I've also added on there a little thing, a little staff comment that whether it's additional language to our zoning ordinance or whether we're amending existing language. For the most part, where we're amending existing language is to try and clear up some technicalities of, you know, you said this use is going to be a principal use over here, but it was a conditional use over here. So we've cleaned up that to get the intent of this text correct. I would like to point out on a couple of things. Page 2 is the first one. As you can see, under Section 821-O, and that's the special provision of the B-4 zone, we are adding a whole new use, and this is where the crux of this text amendment is. It's kind of the heart of the text amendment, and it would be special provision number 4. and that would be that's where it sets out that the planning commission would have to approve the final development plan it sets forward essentially the locational criteria and it also sets forward some criteria that the applicant would have to meet in order to qualify if you look on 2c I highlighted the number three because at the end of our zoning committee I really took away from the recommendation of the zoning committee, we had a large discussion on what the criteria, right now there are eight proposed criteria. What the criteria should be, how they should be worded, how many of those criteria do you need to meet? At first, whenever I was looking at this, just a little bit of evolution, I think we're actually on the third or fourth evolution of this text amendment in six weeks or something like that. So So a lot of work has gone through it. At first I was basically thinking, it started off with six criteria, so three, half of that. Then we upped it to seven, and then we thought of something else good, we upped it to eight. And, you know, at first I was kind of thinking, well, you need to meet half the criteria. But I've changed my way of thinking, and this is, and at our zoning committee, I personally was wavering on what to recommend to the zoning committee, how many of the criteria need to be met. And I kind of, where I've changed my thinking around, it's not can you meet half the criteria or anything like that. All of the criteria are good things. And so how many good things do you need to really kind of say, okay, we're going to get behind and support this adaptive reuse project? And that's really where I've kind of settled on the number three. Getting the criteria correct and getting the amount of criteria that has to be met is the most important part of this entire text amendment. Because you want to set the bar high, but you don't want to set it so high that only one or two pieces of property are ever going to be able to benefit from it. So that's the balance that I've been struggling with the entire time that this has been in. As you can see on your green sheet, I'll kind of go over these real quick. The staff is recommending that we remain with three of the following criteria. That is our staff recommendation. We are recommending a slight change to number two. I had a very quick conversation with our Historic Preservation Department whenever they were under much distress getting ready for a meeting, and they were kind enough to kind of go through, and they felt that the words certified or preliminary are superfluous, that those words should be deleted. They also felt it was individually listed on the state inventory of historic places. they felt that that was a bit redundant with some of the other provisions that were already there. I've already talked with the applicant. I think they might ask that that remain in, and I'll let them explain that. Going over to page three of the white text, there was much discussion. I presented the eighth criteria at the zoning committee, and that would be, and it was submitted just as it's there on the white sheet, significant public art is provided by the development. Quite frankly, I threw it out there and didn't think that the zoning committee would go for it, and they were very much in favor of it, and it's just getting the wording right. There was some worried about the word significant. How do we do that? And thank you, Randall. So he's contacted some of his colleagues and people that are in the art business, and they gave us a lot of ideas, and those are really great ideas. I kind of cherry-picked some of the best ideas of what I could get out of that to propose new language for that criteria. And that would essentially be that the public art would be provided by the development, and it would be publicly displayed in an unpaid area and visible from the adjacent street level. That's kind of important on the unpaid area. You don't really see that much, but it's really to keep it free and accessible to the public. We wouldn't want to create a private sculpture garden and say that's the public art and then charge people to get in and see it. That kind of goes against what we were trying to do there. And we also thought that it was wise to just to spell out that this does not include business logos or other types of advertisements in the public art. I don't think we want a giant Coca-Cola sign out there and call it public art. That's our staff recommendations on that. There is one other additional change, and that would be on page four of the text. And Tracy brought this up during our zoning committee, that we had a bit of circular logic in the text. Under the prohibited uses, it would be G2. We said uses prohibited in the B1 zone unless specifically permitted herein. If you go to the B1 zone, it's mostly B4 uses, which are specifically permitted herein, so we kind of didn't need it. By just deleting line 2, the only thing that we are specifically prohibiting in an adaptive reuse project would be all of the adult uses. That's the exact same thing that we did in our industrial mixed-use projects in the I-1 zone. The prohibited uses in the base zoning, be it B-4, I-1, or I-2, will still be prohibited uses in an adaptive reuse project, assuming that it's not specifically allowed. So, for instance, in a B-4 zone, you're not allowed to have a slaughterhouse. You couldn't say, I'm doing an adaptive reuse and creating a slaughterhouse with the dwelling units up above it or something like that. I mean, it's a ridiculous one, but it gets my point across. With that being said, I think the green sheet constitutes all of the staff recommended changes to the text amendment as the zoning committee did. Of course, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Yes, ma'am. I have a question. On the change on page three concerning the public art, the last sentence says this is not to include a business logo or other type of advertisement. I understand you don't want a 10-foot logo. Does that, would that in fact prohibit if a corporation gave a large donation to buy a piece of public art, would that prohibit the use of a small plaque or some other identification that would keep them, you know. I don't think so because that's not the plaque saying who donated the public art. Well, if they put their logo on, it is a form of advertising. That's, you know. I understand. The nice thing about this criteria, along with all of the other criteria, is that, first of all, it's a shopping list of what could come out, what could be used to do your adaptive reuse project. The other thing is that it's the developer's responsibility to document how they're going to meet those criteria. So you should be getting statements from and a plan from the development of, yes, we're doing this public art, and that's how we're going in and doing it. So you'll get that kind of explanation there. I would have to look at our law department to see if they think that would prevent the plaque. Now, based on this wording, I think what the intent is the logo itself cannot qualify as the piece of public artwork. So as long as it's a plaque saying this piece of public artwork, which is not our logo, is what qualifies. That's all that's doing. Okay. I just was going to make sure. I tend to answer questions in a very long, roundabout way. You never want to turn down a corporate donation that's going to put some wonderful public art out for us. Thank you, Jimmy. If there are any other questions for me, I'd be happy to take them. And, of course, I'll be here throughout the hearing if you have any questions for us. Any questions for Jimmy? I do want to say thank you, Jimmy, for sticking with us. I know it's been a lot of effort and a lot of work, and having sat in on the zoning committee last week, there was a lot of discussion on it. So any questions for Jimmy? I would just quickly add, I'm glad to see us take this approach to coming up with some ordinance to address adaptive reuse. I think it's needed in this community. The only other thing I'd like to see is it's restricted to certain areas, but we have a lot of vacant schools or abandoned schools inside residential areas and they would make some good adaptive reuse projects in the future as well. We might want to look at that. I really hope that this text amendment will usher in some really good projects and that we will be able to learn our lessons about how we did it and everything like that and apply those lessons to other parts of our ordinance in the future. But we've got to start somewhere, and this seems like a very logical place to start. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Thank you, Jimmy. Petitioner? Good afternoon. I'm Chris Westover for Pepper Distillery. It is my great pleasure to be here today to put this text amendment before you. I also want to thank the staff, particularly Jimmy. We have worked on many, many different iterations of this, and I think that it's in essence where we want it. We really believe that this text amendment will facilitate the revitalization of many, many parts of this community. And we thank the staff, and we want to state that we support the revised text amendment. And we just have one small change that we ask that you consider, and that is on the green sheet. I think you have it here about historic places and the types of structures that would be eligible. we do request that you put back in that properties that are on a state inventory of historic places can be included. Because not every historic property or every older property may be eligible for national historic status. And this widens it somewhat. And there is an ample repository of information at the state level. So we ask that you would keep that in. I think that's the only really technical matter. And I could go on for some time to talk about pepper distillery in this project, but what I'd like to do is just take a moment to see if Barry McNeese, who is the main force behind it, would like to say a few words about what he's attempting to do. My name is Barry McNeese, and I am one of the partners behind Pepper Distillery and the Lexington Distillery District. I think that particularly the Pepper Distillery, but really the entire corridor of Manchester Street, presents our community with an opportunity to not only do something fantastic in that area, but also to chart some new territory, which is the reason we bring this text amendment to you. Our hope is that across the board and by setting high standards for the criteria to even make something like this possible, that we establish a pathway towards celebrating a part of the fabric of our community that sometimes is too easily torn down for something new. So we hope that by establishing criteria and by broadening uses, that this, akin to our status as the guinea pigs of industrial mixed use, but it's an opportunity that we really embrace, and we appreciate the opportunity to hopefully take a step forward in a direction that will be really exciting for Lexington. We appreciate your support. Thank you, Mr. McNeese. Well, in conclusion, we ask for your support for this text amendment, the revised text amendment with the one change, and we believe that this will give us the maximum flexibility to revitalize these parts of the community. If anybody has any questions, please feel free. Thank you, Ms. Westover. I just want a clarification on what is it you want back in? On what I believe is the green sheet of paper, there it says, and revise number two by deleting. And there's a paragraph, number two. There's a phrase, the second to the last from the bottom, is individually listed on a state inventory of historic places. I request that you keep that back in, yes. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Westover? Mr. Holmes? I just had one. What was the staff's opposition to having that taken out? I think that the staff in reliance on a staff member from the Historic Preservation Office said it wasn't necessary. But they are two different lists, so we would appreciate keeping them in. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay. I see quite a few folks that be presumptuous to say that they're not wanting to speak, but I'm sure if there's anyone else would like to, I would hope, speak in favor of this. Please come forward. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent Walker Properties, and we have recently become aware of the Texas Amendment and are in support of it. I think it's a wonderful idea, and we applaud Mr. McNeese for the work he's doing in the distillery district. And we'd like to show you what we're doing here, too. We own the National Avenue property. Chaz Height is a planner working with us and setting that up while he's doing it. Greg Walker is here with me on the third row of Walker Properties. And he and his father, Randy Walker, and his brother, Chad Walker, have been doing adaptive reuse under the radar for the last few years. And I know we had a zone change before you about a year ago for property up on Midland Avenue for where Stephen Heinflores wanted to stay downtown after they lost their lease. And you all granted us a B-1 zone change for that, and that has worked out very successfully on that. But they have been doing adaptive reuse over the years. And just to let you know where we're located at, this is a little light here, but here is Winchester Road and Midland Avenue up at the top. Here's Walton Avenue going through here. Here is National Avenue, which is the spine of this. This is North Ashland Avenue that comes up and intersects, and this is Given Avenue that comes up here nationally, takes a kink, and then goes down a little further. The part we've got crosshatched is the property which Walker Properties has been able to assemble over the years, And you can see they have, I'd say, 90% of this block area through here. Now, what have they done with that? And I just have like four pictures. I'd just like to show you if you could put those on the screen here. They have been, as I say, sort of quietly readapting and reusing the warehouse properties through there. The first picture I've got, just to show you what's going in there, is Willis Klein showroom, which that's not it. But you'll probably recognize this building. It's probably one of the more recognizable ones coming through there. They do sort of kitchen bathroom fixtures and hardware in there. The second one is, this is Henry Brown. And I didn't know much about this until Greg was telling me about it. This is a company which designs and makes sort of artistic handbags here in Lexington, and Oprah Winfrey really likes them. And that has really helped this business, and that's where they're made, right there. And that's sort of an artistic-type business. Next one is one I mentioned is Stephen Hein Florest. You can see in the middle of the picture up there, up on Midland Avenue, which they have moved in, and that's going real well. The fourth and last one is Kentucky Mud Works, and that is a pottery, artistic pottery business there. So we have the handbag business. We have the pottery business. Now, ones I didn't show was the Tuska Studio. Seth Tuska has a studio for the work, preserve the work of his father, John Tuska, one of the leading sculptors in America. sculptors in America. And we have a furniture shop, a creative furniture shop, antique restoration, I think another one that does furniture out of recycled items. And so they've assembled, now not all of it's artistic. I showed you the Willis Klein showroom on that, but they've assembled quite a little nucleus of an artisan and artistic community up there. but we're limited what we can do. Coincidentally, the walkers came to me a month ago and we started planning to come up with a zone which they could use to see their vision through on this property. And then I stumbled across this text amendment. I'm sorry we haven't participated in before. We didn't know about it, but we think this is a wonderful idea and we want to make sure it applies to us. So what we can't do here, it's sort of interesting. Artistically, it seems like if it's really heavy and it's hard to move around, we can do it here because it fits in the B4 type uses. Now, if it's small like a painter on oils or a yarn or fiber artist, we can't do it here because that's not allowed in the B4 zone. And logically, you'd want all those artistic uses together to feed off each other and do less synergy. Similarly, I don't know if the handbag people sell any of their products here. They probably could under B4 with a small showroom, I think limited to 15%. But what you couldn't have here is you couldn't have next door a shop which sells their handbags and other handbags as well, artistic type handbags. You couldn't do that here. And it would make sense if you come in here, if you're attracted to that area, to be able to sell some of those items. So we were looking for an area, a zone, which would allow the artistic presence and some retail and maybe some food there if people wanted to get some food while they were shopping in the area. And this has done a lot if you've been out there to revitalize the Midland Avenue area, if you remember it from where it was 10 or 15 years ago. But they're limited under the zoning, and this would allow them to carry their vision forward. So we're real excited because this answers what they came to me a month or so ago talking about doing an overall zone and an overall plan. So we're real excited about it. Now, I do want to hand one thing out to you here, and Chaz, if you don't mind doing that here. We do have some proposed additional criteria. I'll give one over there to the operator. our concern after looking at this and I know all text amendments are written with a particular use in mind and we wanted to make sure we could use it because in looking at the criteria initially I know we're shown on the map over here Jimmy had done up the map showing the potential areas that could use this adaptive reuse ordinance and we are shown on the map but under the criteria it would make it very difficult and I don't want to quite get into that yet I want to go with the staff's staff's handout of the ordinance and the reason for that is because there's eight criteria there and at least four of the criteria we have no chance of meeting at all I know other areas can and it's great that they can choose have eight they can meet and choose three we don't have eight of these we can meet. If you go back to this staff handout looking through the eight criteria, which is on the middle and bottom of page two and top of page three, number two, structure identified for a historic district. Now, we have some older structures, but these may not have been all the best-built structures in the world when they were built in the 20s and 30s. They have had to do a lot of structural issues with these buildings as well as just renovation issues. So we don't think we're going to be meeting number two at all. We have a chance of that. Number three, district has applied for some public financing. We're not doing that. Now, when I first saw that, I said, well, maybe there ought to be a criteria that gives credit to people who do it all on their own, that maybe there ought to be a criteria, well, you did it all with private funding. Put that in there too. But I understand that's fine, but we can't meet that. We're not applying for TIF financing on this one. And I don't think we ought to be required to reply for public financing to do this. You want to encourage the people to do it on their own. Six, although I think this is a comprehensive plan, I think we meet the goals and objectives. We're not exactly shown on the plan in one of those striped categories at this point. I think the plan just shows our existing uses out there. Seven, we are not on a Brownfields recovery site. So we've knocked out four we cannot possibly meet. And more of them would be difficult. On one, the LEED certification. Now, the Walkers have done that. And actually, the Walkers have built a geothermal building, not in this area, but elsewhere in town. So they know how to do this and really want to do it. But here's the problem we run into. Under LEED certification, they were talking to an artist who wanted to go into a building, who wanted a LEED certified building. Well, they said, that's wonderful. We'd like to do that too. Worked up the cost, but when the cost came back, the artist couldn't afford it anymore. Sometimes artists need a lot of space, and if the window isn't totally airtight, that doesn't really matter that much. They need the space, and the LEED certification for artistic ventures especially can cost a little too much and put the threshold a little too high. But the walkers are aware of that and do use that when at all possible. On number four, residential housing. Well, residential isn't part of their plans. We have a fine residential area right behind us. This is Aurora Avenue right here, which has very fine, reasonably priced housing stock, which supplies housing for the area. They weren't planning on doing it here. Sometimes the uses aren't compatible and more the buildings may not have been constructed to be able to use for residential purposes. So four would be extremely difficult. Five, provide a high degree of innovative accommodation for non-vehicular transportation. Well, we've been talking to the staff and we understand just putting out bike racks doesn't cut the mustard on doing something like this. You have to do something special. Now, at the distillery district, they have the Town Branch Trail. That certainly meets it. That's a wonderful facility. We don't have that on National Avenue. We've got older streets, narrower streets, narrower sidewalks, and there's a limit to what can be done here. Now, we'd like to meet that, but we're not sure whatever we do, whether that would meet staff guidelines or not. Eight, significant public art. Well, we think we can probably meet that. We've got a lot of good artists out there. But what I'm saying is here, out of the eight, we have to meet three. Four, we have no chance. Three, extremely difficult. One, we think we can do. But we want to have some criteria so we have some flexibility as well to meet these. So I have proposed one change to criteria and three additional. The number two is sort of along the lines that Ms. Westover and Mr. Emmons were talking about, just National Registry or include at least one building constructed prior to 1930. So we have older buildings. We just don't know how eligible they are for all these lists and that sort of thing. And we do have buildings that they do want to preserve and were constructed prior to 1930. That would allow us to meet that bar. And what the goal is is to preserve older buildings. And we do have historical context for these. I'm not sure the buildings themselves might meet the criteria. And we're proposing three additional criteria. Nine, it adjoins or is in close proximity to a residential area. Now, I know the staff isn't too wild about this nine. I proposed it because I felt that this type of use, we have residential right behind us, but maybe ought to be encouraged when you're next to a residential area because it's probably a more compatible use with residences than is a traditional B4, which can include heavy automobile and truck repair, light assembly, and those type of things, the things that might go pound in the night. And we feel by allowing these uses, it might make it, would probably make it more compatible with a residential area here. So that's why I put that one in there. that would be something this property could meet, and maybe other properties that might be good to have this where you've got already B4, I1, I2, heavy industrial, next to a residential area. 10, we proposed it contains 80,000 square feet or more of existing building space. Now, that is not a requirement, but that would be one of the criteria that we could meet. And we feel by proposing that, if you have 80,000 square feet, that's two acres under roof already. That's a substantial size. It shows a couple things. One is that you can do a true mixed-use development in there with a number of different tenants, not just using one use in there. And number two, it shows that the owner has made a significant investment and a significant commitment to doing this. They have the will and the intent to see this through because they've got a lot of property that they have to use. And number 11 is that use of a portion of the property for artist studios commenced prior to January 1, 2008. Now, we talked about this. This is sort of the nonconforming use for grandfathered in. And again, it proves that the people owning this have made that commitment and already shown the intent again to turn this area around, put an artistic area in here, and make it go even before this text amendment was proposed. So again, our concern is that I know we've been focusing on the distillery district, And that's what the discussion has been. And we don't want anything to change the success that they have. And what I've done here by adding proposed criteria, that would give us a chance to qualify as well and give us a chance as well. I would guess the distillery district can meet all eight of those criteria that you have right now and have to meet three. We can't meet all eight. We have a great deal of trouble meeting three or two, but we want to be able to do this. And I hope you will agree that this is the type of area that deserves to be included in this and that this is the type of use that you all as Planning Commission want to encourage the continuation of, which the walkers have already started here. So that's our presentation, and we hesitate to tinker, if you will, with the ordinance the way it has been presented to us, but if you would put yourself in our shoes, this is our one chance and our only chance to make sure that we can be eligible to use this too, And we are truly excited about this. And I'm pleased to be presenting this to you because I have a client that's already committed the intent and the will to do it, and is already doing it and has already wanted to carry through and have more artistic uses in this, and supporting uses, and to continue to contribute to the transformation of this area of Winchester Road. So that is our proposal, and we thank you very much for listening to this. And, again, we want to thank both the staff for participating with us. During the last week, it's been a little frenzied activity back and forth on this. And congratulate Mr. McNeese and his team for coming up with this proposal, too. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I think Mr. Holmes has a question, a couple questions. On number nine, how do you define close proximity to a residential area? Well, I was going to say immediately adjacent to one. Okay, that's how I would define it. And I didn't want, but on the other hand, I didn't want to make it like if you were one away or something. But I'd go immediately adjacent. Okay, and then on number 11, you've got use of portion of property prior to January 2008. What's the significance of January 2008? The only reason I did that is because I didn't know when work on this ordinance started. I figured it started probably in May. May. Well, we could use May first. I was trying to come up with a date that work started on the ordinance. Or you could use today's date, the date it's passed as well. I mean, just so that I was using that date just to show that the owner had the intent to carry through this even before this was an idea. I had one question on the number 10, the 80,000. What was the formula for that? Well, it was close to two acres, and that seemed like a pretty good critical mass. I mean, the walkers actually have higher. I think you have 180,000 somewhere in that neighborhood, probably 180,000 square feet in this area. But we didn't want to limit it to the walkers' property here. But that's a pretty good area. And, again, this is not a requirement but a criteria. Okay. Thank you. Yes. When we discussed this last week, I was delighted with it. I think it's a great thing to do. and I was actually trying to think of other criteria to add to make it easier because it's something we should be doing anywhere that we can do it. I guess it's not a question for you, but Jimmy, having been the one who's been working on it, do you have any concerns with adding these criteria? Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Murphy? I believe we have some other folks that want to speak perhaps in favor. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, Ms. Copeland, did you have a question for Mr. Murphy? Pick 1930. When 50 years is usually what they're all about. Yeah, 50, again, we'd be happy with 50. I guess the older I get, 50 years doesn't seem that old anymore, you know. So part of it is just me hesitant, you know, on doing that. So we'd be happy with 50 years on that. Okay. And I have another question. Are there enough artist studios to go around to work for this criteria? I mean, you've got your artist studios, but are there enough that we could build that in? Well, this, of course, the adaptive reuse ordinance isn't just artist studios. I'm emphasizing that because that seems to be the trend that has developed out here. Now, I guess if you asked me, I'd envision the distillery district as sort of an entertainment dining type area. They may have artist studios there, but that may be the emphasis out there. Now, our emphasis might be a little different on this. So I don't mean to say that we expect this to be limited to artist studios, but that's sort of to be the theme that's developed out in this area. We'd like to have other uses, too, out there and to be able to use the uses which are allowed by this ordinance. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Vaughan, members of the Commission and planning staff. I'm Rob McGoodwin. I'm a local developer, been doing adaptive reuse here in Lexington since 1985. I just want to lend my voice in support of this text amendment. This is something that's been long in coming. I wish we'd have had it a long time ago. I hate to think of the building stock that we've lost in Lexington because these opportunities weren't open to us. This is a wonderful opportunity to turn this around, and I would like to professionally congratulate Mr. McNeese and Pepper Distillery LLC on taking the lead on this. and this is a good thing for Lexington. Let's do it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else would like to speak in favor? I must ask the question, anyone would like to speak in opposition? Okay, I'm seeing none. Jimmy, are you ready for your rebuttal? I would really hate to phrase this as a rebuttal, but more kind of closing comments. First of all, I just want to say for Ms. Westover's request that the language that we were proposed to strike, that it keep in. Don't think that we have a problem keeping that in. I am not an expert in any of our historic things. I live in a historic zone and I understand the design guidelines and that I have to abide by them, but that's because I understand zoning law, not necessarily all of the iterations of the historic. I don't think that it hurts anything to leave that language in and staff has no objection to that. to make that point clear first. The second part to address Mr. Murphy's proposed additions to the criteria, I need to report that they came in very late. I did not have a chance until early this morning to actually meet with my colleagues about these proposed criteria. And I cannot say that I had the staff support to recommend these different criteria to you today. Just kind of going through them one by one, and I want to speak to you not as the lead planner that's been working on this text amendment. Prior to 1930 or older than 50 years, whatever kind of language you would want to put in there, just like I am not an expert on whether we should or shouldn't, keep this in. I don't know whether to tell you whether it hurts or doesn't hurt to add in some sort of language to criteria number two. Criteria number the new criteria proposed for number nine adjoins or close proximity to residential areas. That's the one that I believe that we had the biggest heartache about and not the sentiment that's attached to it. I agree with Mr. Murphy that some of these uses in this text amendment whenever they're adjacent to might be considered less. But I don't think that number nine is an appropriate criteria. And I'm pretty sure that amongst my colleagues today that everybody would agree that number nine is not an appropriate one to add. Number ten, whether it contains 80,000 square feet of existing building space. You know, as Mr. Murphy pointed out, that is roughly two acres under roof. And it does, in my mind, does point out that, you know, you've kind of got a critical mass, whether it's in one building that needs to, one big building that is looking for an adaptive reuse or several smaller ones that are in an area for an overall project. I do believe that there is some reason to add number 10, whether 80,000 is the correct number or you wanted to – if the commission was not comfortable with 80,000, kind of the next logical step would be 100,000. I don't know. Obviously, this text amendment being a legislative matter, it's up to the commission on what you want to do with any of it. I honestly believe that had this criteria been presented earlier in the process and been batted around, maybe we had that discussion of whether it should be in there at all, whether it should be 80,000 or 100,000. I think that there is enough reasoning behind number 10 that it would have been at least either that language or some iteration might have been one of the possible criteria presented to you today. And then the number 11, the use of the portion of the property for the artist studios commenced to January 1, 2008. That one, I do understand the reasoning behind it. You know, it's basically showing that you've got that kind of ability to adaptively reuse these buildings for more artist-related. It kind of gets at the demonstrated ability to kind of already do some adaptive reuse of our wholesale and warehouse buildings. So I do understand the sentiment behind that. I also know from my experience that I've had not just the walkers and not Barry, but I've actually had multiple people call me over the years and artists really looking for that live work space where they can work on their art, live there, and sell their art all kind of in one area. I know that that live work environment has been sought after. Eleven in there increases the playing field for that. But I do want to iterate. I mean, not iterate, but I do want to emphasize the fact that I did take these criteria as they're presented to you today, and I did present them to my colleagues, and there was concern about adding these. So if that's it, I'd like to add, yes, maybe a little more succinctly. We are very supportive of what the Walkers have been doing, obviously. They're wonderful developments. However, these ideas we feel have come very late without a chance to fully vet what the implications of adding these to the text amendment are. And, for instance, the kinds of thoughts we're having this morning, as we've already hit, 1930. Well, next year, do you change that to 1931, the year after 1932, or do you look at some other kind of criteria? Adjoining the residential, given some of the uses as a defining criteria, not that some of these couldn't work well next to residential, is obviously a concern. Again, we had a concern about the 80,000. We've not researched what that means. What does that include? What does that exclude? Who will come next month with a 79,000 square foot building and say, why not me? And likewise, on the last one, why an artist studio specifically versus other types of uses? Again, these all may be valid. These may be good ideas, but without fully discussing and fully vetting those, we had a concern. The bottom line being that if you add these criteria, an 80,000-square-foot tin storage building built two years ago next to a residential area would qualify. And is that what we were trying to get at? So those are the kinds of conversations we had this morning. The question is, do we stop the text amendment that is being proposed and spend another month or two analyzing these other things, or do we move forward? And that was what we were wrestling with this morning, given that we had a text amendment that had an application made for it, and for which we have had months of conversation and vetting about the implications of those changes. We felt very comfortable with going ahead. So, again, we're not saying that doing criteria or defining criteria that might make the National Avenue area more eligible than it might already be. And I think we feel that there may be ways that they are eligible under the existing criteria, perhaps. I know Mr. Murphy is trying to make that much more clear, and I understand why. but we're just a little concerned at broadening the text amendment with just a few days of conversation about those. I just hope that helps you understand a little more what the other staff members as we sat down bright and early this morning and talked through these were concerned with. I believe that concludes my remarks. Of course, myself and the rest of the staff will be available should you have any questions on the text. Thank you, Jimmy. We've got a question, please. Mr. Brewer? I, again, would encourage expanding these. I understand your concerns, absolutely, and I think they should be properly vetted. But I would hate to see a development that could benefit from this not be able to benefit or have to go through another two years of discussion to get to this point. So procedurally, how much would it take to add these criteria at a later date? I mean, without holding up this process. I do not want to hold up this process. I think this needs to be passed tonight. I think it's a great idea. I would encourage including these if they could be addressed with appropriate language now. But can you give me some idea if we pass it tonight without these amendments, how quickly could we get them in? The, I'll give you the first, it's a complicated answer to the question that you had, but the simple answer is, is that if this text amendment went through without any of these on there, the, it would go from the planning commission onto the council. Being a legislative matter, the council can either just accept your recommendation and just vote on it and make it law. They can hold another public hearing on it should they wish to. They can stick it in a committee and mull over it and go over this legislation. None of those things change regardless of whether you add or don't add any of the criteria today. So that's process-wise. If it goes through all the way to the council and becomes law, the planning commission, the counselor, or any private citizen or entity can submit a zoning ordinance text amendment, just like Mr. McNeese has, to add these criteria at a later date. Can the council also add them at their hearing? Absolutely. In fact, being a legislative matter, and them being the lawmakers, they can pretty much add it. They could put it in committee, discuss it, and decide to add it if they wanted to. Ms. Phillips. I just wanted to let the people who are not on the zoning committee know that we had a discussion in zoning committee talking about how wonderful this amendment is, but do we want to put it forward as is because there is a timeliness associated with it? Or do we want to make sure, you know, properly vet it, look for these kinds of things, talk to other potential developers like, you know, like the Walker properties? And I was thinking about it, and I'm sorry I didn't contact you. I told Jimmy I would contact him. Let's say someone wanted to come in and redevelop Turflin Mall or Lexington Mall. What criteria would they meet here? And unless they did the green infrastructure, I really don't know that they would meet any of these criteria. Yet I would want our zoning ordinance to be in a position where we would provide them incentives to do so. And I'm all for this. And I think that our ordinance does need to do this. But we do kind of have to have a starting point, I suppose. And I guess this is a good starting point, but I'm still a little unsure whether we should even have criteria. You know, Jimmy suggested three criteria. Why not two? Why not one? Because I think this is the direction that we need to go in as a community. and why have any sort of disincentives at all make people jump over hurdles. But I also understand that we're providing some relief from other ordinance criteria if we do have an adaptive reuse. So it's a balancing act, and I just wanted to make those comments. Yeah, I think the three is probably a good bar because it does encourage some creativity to try and get to those three versus the one or the two. I mean, I think when you set that bar at three and you get in that list of the eight or so that you have, it's going to encourage that developer then to creatively, you know, do I get the 10% housing bonus or how do I make some of those work? So I kind of like the three as a good starting point. Mr. Day. If we choose to add one or two of these additional criteria, can we do that tonight just as far as a public hearing? Won't it just become part of our text amendment? I mean, whatever action the commission takes, we will prepare the final report on the text that you approved and send that to the council. So, I mean, my ass picking two of these or one of these. If you wanted to pick one. one of those changes you could say you can make a motion just as like the staff has proposed a few changes. You want us to delete some things. I like 1 and 11. I guess that's my comment. I said I like number 1 and number 11 of the additional criteria. If you did want to do one rather than say 1930, I would say 50 years old, but I'm not an expert on any of these things. I would choose a years old rather than a date. So we have an option, two options actually it appears to either approve it as is with some of the suggested changes by Ms. Westover to keep in the historic language or look at approving with adding so adding one or two or three of the proposed that Mr. Murphy has suggested so at this point you know it's I think we've heard we have an opportunity in a perfect world if it goes to Council and they approve it and becomes law and if they decide to hold a hearing it gives another venue to to vet out some of these things I think we do need to consider giving staff because of the implications, the chance to vet these things that have been presented this morning. I think the significance of it is probably greater than what we're trying to figure out here in the last hour and 15 minutes. I would defer on the side of staff having an opportunity to vet those on the screen and then allow ourselves an opportunity to have faith in what's been worked on for the last two months to go forward. So with that, that's how I'll leave it. And Ms. Westover, you had something else you'd like. Thank you, Chairman Vaughn. What I would request is you take action tonight. My client has, as you all know, presented the information to the TIF committee, and it's really important to try to keep a pace with what's going on. And we don't necessarily disagree with what Mr. Murphy is proposing, but I do agree with the staff that this came late and there hasn't been opportunity to study that. Mr. Murphy's client, like any citizen, like the commission or the Urban County Council, has the power to initiate a text amendment. if the version of the text amendment we're proposing is approved by the Urban County Council, then a subsequent text amendment to clean it up can be initiated. And this is not uncommon either, because when you all adopted, for example, the mixed-use zones, there have been several text amendments to clean it up. I mean, it's very, very common to do. We do not want to hold up Mr. Walker in any way, But yet we do have a pressing concern to move this forward after now that it's been studied now for several months by the staff, by us, and discussed throughout the community. Thank you, Ms. Westover. Mr. King? I might add as well that the staff would be more than willing to continue the conversation with Mr. Murphy and his clients. And if we find language that would satisfy between now and when the Council acts, as has already been noted, it's a legislative matter we could jointly approach the Council and say, we have now achieved some language that we're comfortable with that expands this. And we will commit as a staff to continue that. Thank you, sir. That's good. Just wanted to respond to the comments here on how you proceed. We thank you for taking our concerns seriously on this. And we did come late to the dance here, but it was because we hadn't been invited before. And so we're trying to deal with this as well. And we do fully support this. I was talking to Greg Walker here as we were talking, and we'd be happy to work with the staff on these items between now and when it does go to the council, especially if there's an ability to come to an agreement, tell the council about this and make it pass. We're not wedded to all three of 9, 10, and 11. We think we can probably make it work with one or two of those. We think the discussion about modifying one to make 50 years from the date of application is a very good idea. so I guess my first choice for you tonight would be to make that little modification on two, which I've listed as number one there, and go with one of those other three to get your input to the council on it, but if you don't want to do that, we will work with the staff, as Mr. King suggested, and Mr. McGoodwin whispered in my ear, he'd be happy to work with us too between now and the time it goes to the Council as well. It's an interesting situation and a good situation here. The developers are basically all in agreement and very excited about doing this. And everybody wants to make sure it's done right. Again, those other, these are not requirements. These are criteria. So even if we said, let's just say on 10, if you put in 80,000 square feet, that doesn't mean somebody with 79,000 or 15,000 couldn't do it. It's just that this would be a criteria we could meet to show the financial commitment and the space commitment and the availability of mixed use projects to do that as a criteria which would be a point in our favor on getting this approved. And you all still do have to approve all these projects as they come to you on development plans. So you will see all these again and you will be the ones who will be determining if they meet the criteria. So just want to tell you where we are. We'd hope you'd use one in one of those other three, but if not, we'd be happy to work with the staff between now and when it goes to the council. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I have one more comment. I think in the interest of trying to compromise with this and not slow down the process, it seems that if we change it number one here to 50 years or whatever and allow 11, the 80,000 square feet, I can completely understand the need to vet that. The close adjoining proximity vet that, absolutely. But I don't see any downside to a revised one and an existing 11, and I think we ought to include that unless the staff has significant concerns with either of those. Looking at these for the very, very first time about 30 minutes ago, I'm concerned about 11 in terms of the specifics of the language. Does this mean that this studio was started at that location prior to January 1, 2008? and if what we're trying to do is adaptive reuse of property that hasn't already been done, that doesn't really make sense. Does it mean an artist studio that existed prior to them but is now going to relocate into this adaptive reuse center? I'm not sure that this having a date on there as opposed to if you want to have artistic use in your project, then have that as a criteria. but to a certain extent you can almost meet that with this significant public art. Well, you know, art studios that display their works, I think a developer could arguably come in and say he's going to make provisions where that might meet a criteria that's already there. I'm just not real sure that 11 is specific enough at first glance to understand what the intent of it is. I think by virtue of this discussion that these haven't been fully discussed And once again, I would rather have these go back to the staff and have some input from them before we try and make those decisions tonight. And I would move that we move forward with it as presented with the change on the historic. On the historic. Okay. Is that a motion? That's a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second that we move forward with ZOTA 2008-6 as presented by staff and recommended for approval. for the reasons given by staff indicating the modifications on the green sheet, keeping in the second to last line on item two of individually listed on a state inventory of historic places. Okay. Is there a call for question? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I guess staff, to wrap out the day, you have anything else? Staff items? Okay, I guess everyone in the audience is leaving. Is there a motion for adjournment? All right, we're adjourned.