# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - January 15, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · January 15, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/726 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/726?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-01-15 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 10,156 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on January 15, 2009, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding. The meeting addressed 10 agenda items in total, covering a range of land use and development matters as well as administrative business. All agenda items were approved, including development plans for Hamburg Place Office Park Lot 3, Sunny Slope Farm, Providence Place Tract 3, and Landsdowne Shopping Center, along with action on the Joyce Fields Property. The Commission also conducted internal administrative business, approving the Election of Officers and the Delegation of Secretary's Duties. Across the meeting, 15 motions and votes were taken, no formal presentations are recorded in the meeting data, and no public comments were heard. ## Attendance The following members were present at the January 15, 2009 Commission meeting: - Randall Vaughn - Neill Day - Carolyn Richardson - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Marie Copeland - Mike Owens - Joan Whitman - Ed Holmes - Patrick Brewer **Absent:** Mike Cravens, Frank Penn No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions All votes at the January 15, 2009 Commission meeting passed unanimously by voice vote (9–0), with all nine members voting in favor: Randall Vaughn, Neill Day, Carolyn Richardson, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Marie Copeland, Mike Owens, Joan Whitman, Ed Holmes, and Patrick Brewer. - **Minutes Approval** – Moved by Neill Day, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The minutes from October 9, 2008 and November 13, 2008 were approved. [timestamp: 0:35] - **PLAN 2008-71P (Hampton Springs)** – Moved by Joan Whitman, seconded by Mike Owens. Postponed to February 12, 2009. [timestamp: 1:43] - **PLAN 2008-76F (Bogie Estate, Lot 1)** – Moved by Mike Owens, seconded by Joan Whitman. Postponed to February 12, 2009. [timestamp: 2:47] - **PLAN 2007-239F and PLAN 2007-241F (Gess Property, Units 6-A and 6-C)** – Moved by Joan Whitman, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Postponed to February 12, 2009. [timestamp: 4:00] - **PLAN 2008-117F (Bruce Properties)** – Moved by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Waiver request withdrawn. [timestamp: 5:10] - **DP 2008-137 (Mohammad Seraji Property)** – Moved by Joan Whitman, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Postponed indefinitely. [timestamp: 6:46] - **Consent Agenda** – Moved by Joan Whitman, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Approved. [timestamp: 10:07] - **PLAN 2008-137F (Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 3)** – Moved by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Neill Day. Approved with waiver, with the condition that no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until the sewer line extension and manhole are constructed in compliance with the Engineering Manuals and accepted by the Division of Engineering. [timestamp: 21:32] - **PLAN 2009-02F and PLAN 2009-03F (Sunny Slope Farm)** – Moved by Marie Copeland, seconded by Joan Whitman. Approved with conditions, including deletion of condition 9 for PLAN 2009-02F and condition 7 for PLAN 2009-03F. [timestamp: 27:42] - **PLAN 2008-123F (Providence Place, Tract 3)** – Moved by Neill Day, seconded by Marie Copeland. Reapproved with waivers. [timestamp: 38:21] - **DP 2009-01 (Landsdowne Shopping Center)** – Moved by Marie Copeland, seconded by Joan Whitman. Approved with conditions, including modification of Condition 17 to identify the addition's proposed floor elevation information and Condition 18 changed to a minimum width of nine and a half feet. [timestamp: 1:01:24] - **DP 2009-05 (Joyce Fields Property)** – Moved by Neill Day, seconded by Marie Copeland. Approved with conditions, including deletion of conditions 11 and 12. [timestamp: 1:06:31] - **Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit** – Moved by Marie Copeland, seconded by Joan Whitman. Call and release approved. [timestamp: 1:07:04] - **Election of Officers** – Moved by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Marie Copeland. Approved. [timestamp: 1:08:40] - **Delegation of Secretary's Duties** – Moved by Marie Copeland, seconded by Joan Whitman. Secretary's duties delegated to the Director of the Division of Planning. [timestamp: 1:09:11] ## Appointments The Commission took action on several officer appointments during the January 15, 2009 meeting. Four individuals were reappointed to their respective leadership roles: - **Randall Vaughn** was reappointed as **Chairperson**. - **Neill Day** was reappointed as **Vice Chairperson**. - **Frank Penn** was reappointed as **Secretary**. - **Mike Cravens** was reappointed as **Parliamentarian**. All four appointments were reappointments, indicating that each individual had previously served in their respective roles and was confirmed to continue in that capacity. ## Contested Items - **Landsdowne Shopping Center Sidewalk Width:** A heated discussion arose regarding the adequacy of the proposed sidewalk width at the Landsdowne Shopping Center. Concerns were raised about pedestrian safety and access, with participants debating whether the proposed dimensions were sufficient to meet those needs. The available data does not specify the individual commissioners or parties involved in the exchange, nor does it record a definitive outcome from the discussion. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:35] The Commission reviewed and approved the minutes from two previous meetings: the October 9, 2008 meeting and the November 13, 2008 meeting. Randall Vaughn was the key speaker during this portion of the meeting. No concerns or debate were noted regarding the accuracy or content of either set of minutes. Both sets of minutes were approved. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 01:11] At the opening of the meeting, the Commission addressed several items that would not be heard as originally scheduled. A number of plans were postponed to the February 12, 2009 meeting, and one waiver request was withdrawn from consideration entirely. Key speakers on this agenda item included Rory Kahly and Matt Carter. The Commission approved the postponements and withdrawal. *Note: The available data does not include the specific plan names or case identifiers for the postponed items, or the details of the withdrawn waiver request.* ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 10:07] The consent agenda was presented and approved without discussion during the January 15, 2009 Commission meeting. Bill Sallee was noted as a key speaker in connection with this portion of the meeting. The items included in the consent agenda were passed collectively, as is standard practice for routine matters that do not require individual deliberation or debate. No concerns were raised, and the consent agenda was approved as presented. ## Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 3 [timestamp: 21:32] The Commission took up a discussion item regarding Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 3, with the central focus of the conversation being a waiver request related to sewer line construction on the property. Key speakers on this item were **Tom Martin** and **Matt Carter**, who addressed the Commission on the details of the proposal. The discussion centered on the specifics of the sewer line construction waiver being sought in connection with the development of Lot 3 within the Hamburg Place Office Park. Following the discussion, the Commission **approved** the item. *Note: Additional details regarding the specific arguments presented, any concerns raised by commissioners, and the precise nature of the waiver request are not available in the source materials beyond what is summarized above.* ## Sunny Slope Farm Plans [timestamp: 27:42] The Commission took up the matter of Sunny Slope Farm Plans as a discussion item during the meeting. Key speakers on this agenda item were **Cheryl Gallt** and **Kitty Hall-Harmon**. The discussion centered on conditions related to compliance reports, which had previously been outstanding. According to the summary of the item, those compliance-related conditions were resolved in the course of the discussion, allowing the matter to move forward. Following the discussion, the Commission **approved** the Sunny Slope Farm Plans. ## Providence Place, Tract 3 [timestamp: 38:21] The Commission took up the matter of Providence Place, Tract 3, which involved a reapproval of the tract along with a waiver related to sewer line bonding. Key speakers on this item were **Tom Martin** and **Rory Kahly**, who participated in the discussion regarding the reapproval and the associated waiver request. The discussion centered on the reapproval of the tract and the specific question of whether to grant a waiver for the sewer line bonding requirement. The Commission ultimately **approved** the item. ## Landsdowne Shopping Center [timestamp: 1:01:24] The Commission took up a discussion item regarding the Landsdowne Shopping Center, with the conversation centering on sidewalk width and parking statistics for the development. Key speakers in the discussion included **Bill Sallee** and **Mike Robbins**, who addressed the specifics of the plan as presented to the Commission. The discussion focused on two primary technical considerations: - **Sidewalk width** — the dimensions and adequacy of proposed pedestrian walkways associated with the shopping center plan - **Parking statistics** — the parking figures and how they related to the center's layout or requirements The item was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. *Note: The available record identifies the general topics of discussion and the participants, but does not include further detail on the specific figures presented, any concerns raised, or the precise terms of the approval.* ## Joyce Fields Property [timestamp: 1:06:31] The Commission took up the Joyce Fields Property as a discussion item during the January 15, 2009 meeting. Andy Holmes was the key speaker presenting on this agenda item. The discussion centered on the plan for the Joyce Fields Property, with particular attention to two outstanding conditions that had been associated with the project: issues related to parking and detention. According to the summary of the item, both of these conditions were resolved prior to or during the course of the discussion. The Commission ultimately approved the Joyce Fields Property plan. No additional concerns, dissenting voices, or unresolved issues are reflected in the available record of this agenda item. ## Election of Officers [timestamp: 1:08:40] The Commission took up the election of officers for the upcoming year. Lynn Roche-Phillips was a key speaker during this portion of the meeting. The current slate of officers was put forward for re-election, and the item was approved. No alternative candidates or concerns are reflected in the available record of this discussion. ## Delegation of Secretary's Duties [timestamp: 1:09:11] The Commission took up the matter of delegating the Secretary's duties during this portion of the meeting. Randall Vaughn was the key speaker on this agenda item, which addressed the formal assignment of the Secretary's responsibilities to the Director of the Division of Planning. The item was brought forward as a discussion matter and resulted in approval by the Commission. No additional concerns, objections, or extended debate are reflected in the available record for this item. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of minutes from October 9, 2008 and November 13, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-71P** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Hampton Springs plan to February 12, 2009 - **PLAN 2008-76F** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Bogie Estate, Lot 1 plan to February 12, 2009 - **PLAN 2007-239F and PLAN 2007-241F** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Gess Property, Unit 6-A and 6-C plans to February 12, 2009 - **PLAN 2008-117F** — withdrawn (9-0): Withdrawal of waiver request for Bruce Properties - **DP 2008-137** — postponed (9-0): Indefinite postponement of Mohammad Seraji Property plan - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **PLAN 2008-137F** — passed (9-0): Approval of Hamburg Place Office Park, Lot 3 plan with waiver - **PLAN 2009-02F and PLAN 2009-03F** — passed (9-0): Approval of Sunny Slope Farm plans with conditions - **PLAN 2008-123F** — passed (9-0): Reapproval of Providence Place, Tract 3 plan with waivers - **DP 2009-01** — passed (9-0): Approval of Landsdowne Shopping Center plan with conditions - **DP 2009-05** — passed (9-0): Approval of Joyce Fields Property plan with conditions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Call and release of performance bonds and letters of credit - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Election of officers for the Planning Commission - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Delegation of Secretary's duties to the Director of the Division of Planning --- ## Full transcript ...the, uh, January 15th meeting of the Planning Commission and at this time, we will, uh, entertain approval of the minutes. Uh, we have the October 9th, 2008 and November 13th, 2008 minutes. Uh, at this time, I will, um, ask the commission if there are any, uh, changes, revisions, uh, clarifications, um, please do so at this time. If there are none, the Chair will entertain a motion for acceptance. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the minutes from the October 9th, 2008 meeting and the, uh, November 13th, 2008 meeting. Second. We have a motion to second to approve the minutes, uh, as submitted. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Uh, at this time, we will entertain, uh, postponements or withdrawals. If you have requests for postponement or withdrawal, we'll consider those at this time. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Um, page one, item one, this is Plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs, request a one-month postponement to February 12th. Okay. I'm double-checking Mr. Salley. Is that correct, February 12th? Is that, uh, one month? Yes, sir. That is your- Okay. ... meeting in February. Thank you, sir. We have a request for a one-month postponement for Plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs. This is for property located at 4574 Harrodsburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of Plan 2008-71P until February 12th. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. The next item on your agenda, top of page two, under Final Subdivision Plans, Plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate Lot 1, request a one-month postponement to February 12th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement 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. Chairman, I'll move for postponement of Plan 2008-76F until February 12th, 2009. Second that. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. And, uh, at the bottom of page two and top of page three, I've got two plans, both at the guest property. Um, they're both reapprovals. First one is, uh, Plan 2007-239F Guest Property Unit 6A, and then on page three, it's Guest 2007-241F Guest Property Unit 6C, request a one-month postponement of both of these to February 12th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement for Plan 2007-239F Guest Property Unit 6A and Plan 2007-241F Guest Property Unit 6C. Both of these are located on, uh, a portion of William Way. 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. Chairman, I move for postponement of Plans 2007-2-, 239F and Plan 2007-241F until February the 12th. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, my name's Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. Um, if, if you would turn to, uh, page three, item F, Plan 2008-117F, Bruce Properties, uh, the applicant requests to, uh, withdraw his, uh, waiver request on this one. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Uh, we have a request, uh, to, uh, withdraw, uh, the waiver request for 2008-117F, Bruce Properties, located at 3401 McFarland Lane. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for withdrawal? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for, um, acceptance of the request to withdraw the waiver, um, for Plan 2008-17, 117F. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept the request for withdrawal. Eh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Are there any, uh, wh- requests from staff, I guess? Do we have any receiving- Mr. Chairman, on page six of your agenda. Item three, development plans. The very first item, Item A, DP2008-137, the Mohammed Soraji property, amended. We have been in communication with that applicant, and he has requested an indefinite postponement. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Was that by email, or letter, or phone call? It, it was, in fact, by email, yes. By email. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. All right. We have a request for a, um, a postponement. Did you ... You said indefinite, is that right? Yes. An indefinite postponement for DP2008-137, Mohammed Soraji property, located at 432 South Broadway. This request was by the petitioner via email to staff. 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. Chairman, I move for indefinite postponement of DP2008-137. Second. We have a motion and a second, uh, for indefinite postponement. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Are there any additional requests for postponements or withdrawal at this time? Okay. At this time, um, I will, um, ask the staff to review, um, the land subdivision items that may qualify for our consent agenda today, and at this time, I'll, um, turn it over to Mr. Salih to, uh, review those, uh, those applications. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. There are a few items on your, uh, seven-page meeting agenda that do qualify for consideration on your consent agenda. The first appears on page two, Item B of your meeting agenda. This is a final subdivision plat- plan 2009-01F, Marshall Property Unit 2-I. This is for property located for a portion of 3000 Leestown Road, uh, near McConnell's Trace. There are two subdivision plans that have been recommended for reapproval by your Subdivision Committee. The first of those appears on page three, Item E of your meeting agenda, Plan 2005-196F, Sharkey Property, Unit 2B. This is for property located on a portion of 1700 Leestown Road. The other such plan is on page five, Item K of your meeting agenda, Plan 2006-240F, New Market Phase One, Unit 1E. This is for property located at 1201 Deerhaven Lane. There are two final development plans recommended for conditional approval by the Subdivision Committee that can be considered on your consent agenda. The first appears on page seven, Item C of your meeting agenda, DP2009-02, an amended final development plan for Berry Crest Phase Two. This is for property located at 2385 Huguenard Drive and 223 Pasadena Drive. The other item is the next item you're ... On your agenda, page seven, Item D, DP2009-03, Butchko Property, another amended final development plan for property at 1621 and 1637 Jaggy Fox Way. Uh, all five of these items can be considered on your consent agenda, unless a commission member, or a member of the audience, or an applicant would like those items discussed today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Um, you've heard the reading of the consent agenda. Uh, is there ... Are there any applications, um, that members of the audience, members of the Commission would like to have heard, uh, heard today? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion for acceptance of the consent agenda as read. Mr. Chairman, I move for, um, acceptance of the, um, consent agenda as, as read. Second. We have a motion and a second for acceptance of the consent agenda. 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. Salih. Okay. Um, we will now go into our next application. We'll give staff a moment to, uh, to get set up. Uh, we, we had some lengthy discussion about it, and then I even spoke up about it. The next item on your agenda is on page four, Plan 2008-137F, Hamburg Place Office Park Lot Three, amended. This is a plan that was previously approved by the Planning Commission on November 13th, 2008. The applicant has requested a continued discussion for a waiver request, which is why this is before you today. The lot in question is located on Alice Sheba Way out in the Hamburg office development, between Vendor Way, which is down here- ... and Pink Pigeon, which is up here. Uh, some of the businesses in the area, I believe, are the triple A office, there's a medical building in this area, and some other office uses, including the townhouse offices, uh, in Hamburg are in this general area of development. Here, we have a large detention basin in the development. This is the lot in question, and the waiver request before you is for a waiver on the sewer line to serve this lot, the sanitary sewer line. There's an easement here across Elisheba Way, and the line will come here to serve this lot with a manhole. Now, when this was all one lot, that was adequate, but by subdividing this property, they are required to run an eight-inch line to a new manhole to serve the development on this property. Now, the eight-inch line is required because it'll be over 150 feet extension, and that exceeds the limit for a lateral. That's their maximum. It also will require Department of Water approval. That's Kentucky Department of Water approval. The proposed development here is to be a childcare center, and they want to locate it back, uh, on the lot. And according to the applicant and to your waiver report, there is enough of a drop in slope here that they're concerned that they will have to do a lot of fill, potentially, with the construction of this center in order to meet the finished floor elevations that are required by our sub regs, and as you can see in the report, you are required to have a finished floor elevation of one foot above the elevation of that downstream manhole, which in fact will be the new manhole. The concern is if that is constructed in advance of the building and that they then come in and they have to meet that finished floor elevation, that it could in fact require, uh, a, an unusual amount of fill, potentially, in order to meet that requirement. So they are requesting your all's permission to bond that extension and then coordinate that construction with the construction of that childcare facility. Staff has reviewed the waiver request, we've discussed it with engineering and, uh, at length with the applicant, and we are recommending approval. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Ms. Phillips? It's, um, Thom, it's not exactly a waiver. It's more of a postponement, isn't it? To, uh, or is it that we typically don't bond, uh, sanitary sewer extensions? We typically don't. Okay- Yes, ma'am. ... so it's a waiver to the requirement, to the- It i- ... prohibition against bonding? Well, it is a waiver of the bonding actions itself, as specified in the sub regs, but it is also a waiver of substantial completion, 'cause what we require before that plat is signed by the urban county engineer is that they complete the infrastructure. And since sewer is required to serve a lot, in order for them to accomplish this, they are requesting the waiver, and again, in a wish to coordinate the construction. So the waiver, again, is in two parts. It's a waiver of the actual, um, fiscal promise, the promissory that th- this work will in fact be done. Yes, ma'am. And then it's also a waiver of, uh, substantial completion prior to the engineer being able to certify the plan? Yes, ma'am. It will allow them to record the plan, and it, uh, is 4-7(1) and 4-8 of your sub regs, which are ada- are attached, of course, to your report. That is the specific request. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any other questions for Thom? Uh, mr- yes, sir. Uh, yes, thank you. Thom, um, I guess for clarification on my part, the intention is to put the sewer in, but they've gotta get the fill in first and get the construction going to, to make that happen? What- Or, or the- What they're- ... line's gonna be above ground? Right. Yes, sir. What the concern is, is that if they build the sewer first and set that elevation of the manhole, then in order to meet that finished floor elevation requirement, it could require excessive fill, which would be expensive and, and require a lot of work and that sort of thing. So they would like to coordinate those two things and minimize the amount of fill. Okay. Thank you. Hopefully there would be none, would be the preferable solution, but... Thank you. Are there any other questions for, for Thom at this time? Okay. Thank you, Thom. Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, my name's Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. Uh, we've reviewed the staff's report and we're in agreement. Uh, one of the conditions on the report, uh, states that the, uh, applicant will add to the plat a note saying that no occupancy will be allowed to the daycare building until the sewer is built and, and accepted by the city, so we're okay with that. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Are there any questions, uh, from the commission for Mr. Carter? Okay. Thank you, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Copeland. All right. Mr. Carter, the floor elevation has to be higher than the manhole. The part that we see or the pipe underneath, or ex- exactly how does that work, elevationwise? Right, uh, it has to be one foot higher than the manhole rim. Okay. So the part you see, it has to be higher than that. And what we would prefer is that these people that are developing this lot be the ones to determine what that height needs to be. And, uh, they'll position the manhole where it best suits their needs, so... Okay. But there's plenty of distance underneath the manhole rim for the pipe? Yes. Okay. The, the manhole that we're tying to is approximately eight and a half to nine feet deep. Okay. So there's, there's plenty of room to make it work. We just wanna minimize how much fill has to go in on the lot. And they're currently working on a layout for that lot, but they haven't got into the details of that design yet. So they have not brought a development plan before you yet. Doesn't this always happen? I mean, that you have to work to the manhole rim? It, it does happen, but there's kind of an added benefit to, to the people developing this lot, is they get, they would be able to choose what that manhole elevation is, whereas, uh, the way it normally happens, you don't have any choice. You have to live with what's there. And, uh, since they're the only ones who are gonna be s- using this sewer, we felt that it would be appropriate that they make these decisions. Nobody else would be able to use this sewer. It would only be, you know, built to serve that one business, and it would not be affecting any other adjoining lots. I, I'm really glad that the sewer's gonna be working before the daycare center starts. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Are there any other questions for Mr., Mr. Carter at this time? Okay. Thank you. Uh, Ms. Phillips. Probably better served for Tom. For Tom? Okay. Um, Tom, explain to me again. Are we, uh, is the waiver to avoid having to post a bond to cover the costs of these improvements, or is the waiver to now allow a bonding of the cost of these improvements? The waiver allows the bonding of the line, so the city will have a bond and- An assurance. ... and if necessary, of course, could call the bond if... Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I, I see some folks. I don't know if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application or not, but I'll ask that at this time if there's anyone wants to speak to this application. Um, seeing none, uh, we have, uh, you have before you Plan 2008-137F, uh, with the 18 conditions, uh, with a 19th condition I would assume, presume provided with the Commission grant the waiver of, um, uh, Article 4-7D(1), uh, regarding, uh, sanitary sewers. Um, so at this time, um, we'll close this portion unless there's any other thing that the petitioner or staff would like to add. We'll close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to the Commission for, uh, a motion, discussion on a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion, please. Yes, sir. I move to approve Plan 2008-137F, uh, including the 18 stated, um, notes and the 19th granting the waiver. Is the waiver identified some way that we need to...? The w- granting the waiver that's included in discussion items, uh, for the reasons given by staff. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to, uh, approve Plan 2008-137F and granting the waiver of Article 4-7D(1) and 4-8. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. If you turn to the bottom of page four, you'll find Plan 2009-2F for Sunny Slope Farm, Area D, and we'll also look at Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3, on the next d- next item, which is 2009-3F. This property is located, um, in the sunny slope, which is south of Waveland Museum Lane, which this is where we're gonna connect into the property. It's gonna, in the future, connect to Waveland Museum Lane. It's west of the railroad tracks and just north of the county line. Both these plans were presented to the committees. They were both recommended with postponements. They had standard conditions plus some additional clean-up conditions. First plan had 12. The second one had 11. The staff has since then received the compliance report. If you look at the brown copy that it ma- matches the agenda, you'll see that they have completed the compliance report, so on both of 'em, on condition number nine, on the first plan of 2009-2, that can be, um, deleted, and then item number seven on 2009-3, Sunny Slope, that can be deleted. ... um, and believe that after that, that was what was causing the postponement. We believe these plans can now be approved. Thank you, Ms. Galt. Can you -- can you go over those two -- two deleted conditions again? I missed those. Um, the plans were postponed due to Article 4-5of the Land Sub-regulations, which was for the report on the completion. Okay. And we had not received this at the time of filing, and after the subdivision meeting, or, they were able to, um, give this to us so that we were able to have it for review for this meeting today. Thank you. Are there any, uh, questions for Ms. Galt at this time? Ms. Phillips. Um. Yes, ma'am. Cheryl, what about, um, condition number 12, resolving the easement conflict with the building envelope as shown on the approved development plan? This plan is creating new easements. Um, it's my understanding that they have the footprints, um, staked and they just wanna make sure that we are not inter- hitting any of this new sanitary easement that's going through here. And we believe it's been missed. Thank you, Ms. Galt. Are there any other questions for Cheryl? So, this -- this is the report that -- that we now have and- Yes, sir. Yes, sir. ... uh, documenting compliance with progress of... Yes, sir. All right. Took me by surprise being so many pages. Yes. I'd say this one's the first one that this length. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other questions, uh, is petitioner, is the petitioner present? Petitioner, is there... I saw you sitting back there. I didn't know if, uh, we're talking about Sunny Slope. Oh, Kitty Hall Harman, Hall Harman Engineers. Um, we accept the conditions on both of those and, uh, request approval. Thank you. Are there any questions, uh, for Ms. Hall Harman? Okay. Thank you very much. Um, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application? Okay, thank you. Uh, at this time, uh, you've heard presentation of staff. Uh, you have before you the, um, the report provided by the petitioner, uh, documenting compliance, um, and thus re- allowing deletion of, of condition nine on the first plan, plan 2009-02, and then deletion of condition seven on plan 2009-03, Unit 3, Phase 2. If there are no further questions, uh, we'll close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to Commission for discussion and/or motion. Uh, Ms. Copeland, did you have a... Yeah, please, sure, certainly. Um, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion, uh, for approval for plan 2009-02, Sunny Slope Farm, Area D, with removal of item number nine, and also approval for l- plan 2009-03, Unit 3, Phase 2, with removal of item number seven. Okay, thank you. I - I had a question, I guess, for staff. Are these two at the same address, or should we take these two separately, or is it okay to take these two combined? You don't need to combine them. It's okay to combine them. It's okay to combine them. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, did I... I heard a second on that, I believe. Second, yes. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, uh, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, on page five of your agenda is the next item. It is item J, Plan 2008-123, Providence Place, Track 3. This plan was previously approved by this Commission on November 20th, 2008. It, uh, has been brought back to you, uh, for a waiver discussion, and you might be inclined to say, "Déjà vu all over again," because the waiver request before you is also for the permission to bond the extension of the sanitary sewer line to serve a lot. Now, again, you just recently saw this, I know, so here's Providence Place Parkway, Newtown Pike. The plat that, uh, you have approved is a lotting pattern here. You will requ-- recall, I'm sure, that in that discussion, you were requested and you, uh, granted a waiver of the stub street in your approval of this plat. The waiver before you today is to reg-- the ability to bond a sanitary sewer extension to serve Lot 5. Uh, the information supplied by the applicant is stated that there is a sewer easement here that will provide sewer across Providence and they'll locate a manhole here in the stub street right of way. That manhole will have laterals that will provide service to 3 and 4. Now, this is a similar issue to the previous request in that they too will have to run an eight-inch lateral, and it's in e- e- excess of 150 feet, it's approximately 180 feet, and set a manhole to provide service to this lot. Uh, the applicant has relayed to us, uh, several, uh, concerns, the request is based on hardship, that they have run into rock, which has created a problem for them in this entire development. Um, they also, as stated previously, when you exceed that 150-foot limit, you have to go to the Department of Water and request approval of that eight-inch line. Uh, that can be, uh, a lengthy process. Uh, sometime depend, again, depending on workload, but it can take a matter of few weeks to a couple of months. So the applicant is requesting, again, a waiver. They will... They're requesting to bond the construction of the sanitary sewer e- line here. Staff has reviewed it. We have recommended approval. However, there are conditions of approval, you can see on your report, and that includes that there will be no occupancy permits issued on lot number four until this line is constructed. And that is, uh, relevant because they want to build this with the construction of the stub street, which was, again, subject of your previous waiver. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Um, Mr. Owens? Thank you. Uh, yeah, Tom. Eh, uh, okay, s-... My aligning I guess was a little bit off to begin with, but, um, number two, which is to the left of the stub street, um, is currently going to be sewered, wher- the four and five, am I right, to the right of the stub street is not going to be sewered until a later date? It's my understanding that when they extend this sewer here, they will have to do that in order to get this plat signed. Okay. So the, this manhole will be available to serve- Okay. ... these two lots. Okay. But what were you saying as far as sh- running in front of that f- They're going to have to run that extension, which is the subject of the waiver request, from this manhole to Lot 5. Okay. Which they would, again, like to coordinate with the construction of the stub street. Okay. I have a question, Tom. So are their sewers in, in the right of way of Providence Place way? Is that where sewers rendered? They run up to the stub street, uh, where they exist? It is my understanding they will. Yes, sir. Mm-hmm. And the reason they didn't extend them was because of rock? Well, they will extend them, but they would... they're asking not to extend them at this time to Lot 5 to allow the plat to be recorded, bond that. Rock is one of the justifications, uh, for the waiver. It could affect the depth of the line, which, uh, is important and can be significant. Thank you. Tom, I had o- one other question. Um, condition 11, is that an additional waiver? Condition 11 is the waiver that you granted already. Okay. So that i- i- if, if you approve this, you can strike that condi- We can s- okay. 'Cause you have already granted that waiver. That's- That was the stub street waiver. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. All right. Mm-hmm. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for, um, for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Petitioner? Rory Kay Lee with EA Partners. Um, we are in agreement with, uh, Tom's, uh, recommendations here. I guess to further answer your question, um, when the plan was first filed, the, there was only two lots and we never anticipated a public street here. We were just going for lotting. So we had a manhole. It was going to serve them. Over the weeks of negotiations on what to do, well, then we went to access easements. Finally, we ended up at a public street and, and, um, three buildable lots and, oh, hm, excuse me, open space lot. Um, at that time, uh, and when we asked for this waiver, had I gone through all the construction documents, I would have known that this existing sanitary sewer easement didn't have a line in it. We thought that this would be on the stub and tie in and be done. Um, and we spent the last two months going through the certification of the subdivision plan, getting this ready, and we started looking back at how we're serving this. This is an existing easement. It was recorded back when we thought this was the route. During construction, they ran the line this way. So Lot 5 would have two options that they could build their sewers to. ...when, when we finally get a development plan on it and we move forward. So, the, um, you know, there is existing sewer, um, under the future right of way. Both lots will tie into it, and we're asking that the, we be allowed to get a waiver to construct that sewer easement at such time as we have the street being constructed and a development plan for one of the lots. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Are there any questions for Mr. Kaley at this time? Thank you, sir. Um, audience is dwindling fast. I don't see really anyone out there that may want to speak- ...but I do have to, by protocol, make that request, if is there anyone willing to speak. Um, does staff any, have any additional things they'd like to add at this time? Commission, do you have any questions for petitioner? All right. 'Kay, we'll close this portion and then, uh, turn it over to commission for further discussion, and our motion, you have before you, um, I believe, 12 conditions. Uh, l- conditoning 11, that, that waiver has been granted by this body, um, and then you also have a request for a waiver of Article 4-7, regarding the bonding of the portion of sanitary sewer, uh, on the tan sheet. So, with that, uh, I will ask the commission for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'm, would move for approval of, reapproval, eh, with, of, uh, plan 2008-123F, including the two waivers, uh, and based on the recommendation from staff for approval. 'Kay, we have a, a motion and a second to, uh, reapprove plan 2008-123F, granting the waivers, um, uh, as recommended by staff for the reasons provided. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. It's okay. Mr. Solley. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The next item, I believe, that's on your agenda for your consideration appears on page six. This would be item B, DP2009-01, an amended final development plan for the Landsdown Shopping Center. Uh, the Landsdown Shopping Center's located, uh, at 3, 3319 through 3369 Tates Creek Road. We have rendered for you a revised version of this development plan that staff has received since those of you on the Subdivision Committee reviewed this plan last week. Uh, and we have a revised recommendation that's been passed out to you on the pink sheet prior to the start of today's meeting. The shopping center, of course, is on Tates Creek Road, to the north of New Circle Road, which is off the drawing to my left, and the proposed change to this deve- rment plan, uh, is very small in scope compared to the entire shopping center. Uh, this portion, the center portion of the shopping center in somewhat close proximity to a BP gas station that is most visible on Tates Creek Road, uh, is proposed for a 1284 square foot addition to one of the existing restaurants in the shopping center. Uh, very near the restaurant, to the right is an existing dry cleaners that is proposed to remain. It does have a drive through facility in very close proximity to the proposed addition. The existing restaurant is to the south of the proposed addition, and adjacent to that is a, uh, Rite Aid drug store right in the center of the shopping center, orient you to the location. Um, the Subdivision Committee last week reviewed this plan, and you can see from your agenda, there were 17 conditions, pardon me, 16 conditions recommended for, uh, review by the Subdivision Committee. Uh, the plan was recommended for approval, um, but the committee had quite a discussion about the proposed addition and the remaining pedestrian sidewalk in front of the proposed addition. Uh, I'd like to go to the overhead and show you some more detailed views of that sidewalk area. First, we have aerial photo, again, to orient you a little more to the location of this proposal. Tates Creek Road is here. Gas station I mentioned is here. We have the cleaners, pardon me, dry cleaners is here. The proposed addition is at this location, the existing restaurant and the existing drug store here. 'Course off-street parking in the front. This is looking now from the north at the exact same location. We have the dry cleaners, the restaurant here, proposed addition in this area which currently, uh, is an outdoor seating area on the sidewalk. ... and then the existing drug store at this location. I would ask you to review the two speed humps at this location, that will help for orientation of the remaining exhibits. This is the original development plan submission that shows the proposed addition of 1,284 square feet, and the fact that the curb would be more squared at this location to accommodate, uh, that addition. The distance of the sidewalk here was the issue discussed by the committee last week. This is a blow-up of that same exhibit with some additional information. Uh, in talking with the pedestrian planner and also briefly with traffic engineering, um, the staff has a proposal that we think works better for this particular expansion, and one that we think will meet the discussion items, uh, that were given last week by the subdivision committee, in just a second. The drive aisle currently is in excess of 24 feet, and 24 feet is generally a number that the traffic engineering division likes for parking lots for two-way traffic, and certainly there is a need to keep two-way traffic in front of this proposed restaurant and the expansion. However, it appears if this drive aisle is narrowed to 24 feet, that a sidewalk of about seven and a half feet can be provided in front of the addition. Uh, that would be a wider sidewalk than is on the current proposal, and we think one that's more in keeping, uh, with the remainder of the center. Sidewalks generally at the shopping center are wider than that. However, in talking to the pedestrian planner, she thought seven and a half feet was a good minimum dimension for this particular location. That would involve relocating the curb to this location rather than the solid line of the existing or the dashed line of the current proposed on the development plan. In reviewing the conditions for the plan that appear in your agenda, the first eight are ordinary type of sign-off conditions from the different urban county government divisions. Condition nine, uh, correct plan status and plan title, uh, it is identified as a minor plan. Of course, it's a major amended plan. U- uh, item 10, uh, building dimensions and parking spaces requiring dimensions, again, a clean up kind of condition. Conditions 11, 12, 13, and 15, I just asked for clarified information on ordinary type of development plan information. Um, number 14, clarify parking statistics, uh, the staff's calculations and looking at the previous development plan, we believe there's some, um, inaccuracies with the required parking information on this plan. We think that with this addition, this shopping center will be very close to the minimum a- amount of parking required. There is a, a large amount of parking behind the shopping center, of course, as the plan, um, as you view the plan and historically with this plan, but we would like the parking statistics clarified. We do think that there is enough parking to allow this addition for the additional restaurant seating that's being proposed. Um, condition number 16, again, is another clean up kind of condition, just addition of existing easements to the property. The, uh, condition number 17 that you have before you needs a slight revision, and that is due to the fact that we received this plan a couple of days ago since your committee meeting. This was, uh, drafted under the original version. On number 17, there is still a need to identify the addition's proposed floor elevation information, which is the last half of what you see under number 17. The first part of that condition can be deleted because the applicant's revision has addressed the change in the floodplain due to the new floodplain maps that went into effect late last year. Uh, so that is a change from what the subdivision committee reviewed a week ago. What we would a- ask, uh, 17 to read now is, "Identify the addition's proposed floor elevation information." Uh, that is because the, most of the shopping center is in a floodplain, it will be necessary to document that the floor of the addition is above the floodplain to meet the floodplain requirements. Now, the floodplain is very shallow at this location, so that, that is important information prior to the certification of this plan. And then finally, condition number 18 relates to the di- uh, diagram I showed you on the overhead, but we would like that sidewalk in front of the addition to be a minimum of seven and a half feet in width, uh, from the building to the curb, and that would also include the existing canopy in front of the restaurant that would give us a foot or two or three feet additional in front of that as well. And as you may have seen from the photo, it's in very close proximity to the existing curb. We think that would be a necessary improvement as well. Uh, the staff is recommending approval of the plan with the two modified conditions, 17 and 18. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission about the revised submission that's before you or about our revised recommendation this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Are there any questions for Bill this time, Ms. Copeland? Mr. Salih, we're gonna get seven and a half feet- Mm-hmm. ... and then possibly some more porch space. Is that what I'm hearing? I am not aware that there is any porch space proposed between the front wall and the sidewalk. I'm not sure if the- Oh, okay. ... petitioner's engineer is familiar with those types of details. This plan does not indicate that. ... and I think in talking- ... to the new addition. ... talking with the pedestrian planner, that's not our expectation is that there would be any porches or any outdoor seating in that seven and a half foot area. So, no columns, no overhang, nothing. There's no canopy shown on this plan- Okay. ... for that seven and a half foot area. So, it's just seven and a half feet? That, that's our impression is that you will have a, from the curb, you'll have the drive aisle for the parking, pardon me, for the parking lot, the curb, a sidewalk of seven and a half feet, and then the wall of the structure. Okay. Uh, it's possible they may want to put an awning or something in front of this addition. If you're familiar with that shopping center, there are a number of awnings, uh, on the buildings. There are a few canopies. Canopies are required to be shown on development plans, awnings are not. Okay. So, it is possible that they might have an awning or something to, to mark the entrance to the, to the restaurant addition. Well, with, with changing that, doesn't it change the buildable area? The buildable area, uh, it, on the diagram that we, we put for you is not proposed to change from what you viewed last week. And the revised submission also does not alter the buildable area of 1,284 square feet that's proposed. What is different is the amount of sidewalk width from the front of the addition into the drive aisle area. Uh, that is what we're asking be changed on the plan that's before you, to where we can increase that sidewalk from four feet to seven and a half feet. But it just goes over to, uh, it just goes north. The sidewalk area goes north. When you step out of, quote, "Oscar's" and go- Mm-hmm. ... straight to the parking lot, is it gonna be seven and a half feet there? Yes. That's our, that's what we're asking that this plan show. So once you come out of the new building addition- Mm-hmm. ... that you have a sidewalk area of seven and a half feet before you reach the curb and the cars traveling in the parking lot. Well- It's a difference of about two and a half feet, three and a half feet from what you viewed last week. Even so, if you have seven and a half feet in an open field, you have more workable sidewalk than seven and a half feet against a wall, particularly if you've got wide hips . So we're really talking about a, maybe a six-foot-wide sidewalk functioning, which is minimal at- Mm-hmm. ... at the most. I would agree with you. Most, uh, pedestrian movements are a short distance away from a wall. They're not- Yeah. ... in close proximity. That's true. Thank you very much. The- I'm sorry. I, I was just gonna respond that we thought the drive aisle dimension was fairly important to try and keep that as close to standard as possible. And then the concept was to then maximize the remaining area for sidewalk. Thank you, Mr. Sali. Uh, do we have, uh, Miss Whitman? I, I just want a clarification, um, on number 18. Mm-hmm. Y- you say, "And increase sidewalk width in front of existing canopy." Is that also seven and a half, to be seven and a half feet, or? Not in front of the existing canopy. Uh- Okay, so- ... let me go back to the overhead, and I think I can answer that question. So what are we talking? I, I just want to know what number. It is- It says increased. That could be an inch or it could be several feet. This is the area related to the existing canopy. The existing canopy is only one to two feet from the current curb. And so the idea is that this curb, if it's seven and a half feet here, be continued in front of the existing canopy to also allow it to have additional sidewalk area in front of it. We did not provide a minimum dimension because we did not have dimensions of the existing canopy. But that's the concept is continue the curb straight across in front of this canopy. Mr. Owens? Bill, in talking about the sidewalk and, and the wall, as you mentioned, um, the wall, is that a full wall or is it a half wall? In my understanding, this is gonna be more of a patio, covered patio or something. The way this is shown, this is an addition which would be enclosed space, and our understanding as staff was that this was for additional indoor seating for the restaurant. There currently is an outdoor seating area that has a, some planters or a low wall. Uh, but this depiction is a building addition to the existing restaurant. To- totally enclosed then? That, that's the staff's understanding, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for Mr. Sali at this time? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman. Let me get this up here on a human scale . Members of the commission and members of the staff, um, my name is Mike Robbins and I'm here on behalf of Foster Roland Incorporated representing the client. Um, to answer your last question, uh, this is not going to be a permanently enclosed structure during all seasons of the year. When the weather permits, um, my understanding is that there will be overhead roll-up doors that will go up over the ceiling and you will have open air seating, uh, much like you see over in, uh, Fayette Mall at this restaurant called The Pub or over at, um, uh, Bella Notte where they have kind of a patio arrangement that's open to the atmosphere in the summertime and in the more inclement weather, they can close it off. So, um, part of the year people who are walking by down the sidewalk won't feel a wall right next to them. There'll be this open space into the, into the restaurant area. So, um, additionally, in -- in all other instances in commercial development, even when there are cars parked right up against the sidewalk, the minimum re- minimum requirement is six feet. So without cars coming up and putting their bumpers over this, uh, curb, you've got a full seven and a half feet, with no occasion for a car to shrink it down to even less. So seven and a half feet, um, though less than some places in the rest of the, uh, shopping center is, is still a very reasonable, adequate amount of sidewalk. Um, I don't remember anything else that, uh, required me to, uh, uh, address or clarify any issues, but at this time, I would like to, uh, state that we are prepared to comply with all the conditions, and I would like to request a motion for approval, or... Yes. Consideration for approval. Consideration for approval, pardon. Thank you, Mr. Robbins. You can ask for the motion, all right. Okay. Um, at this time, are there any questions, uh, from Commission for Mr. Robbins? Yes, Ms. Phillips? Um, one of the conditions was to denote easements, and I just wanted to be sure that you guys have thought about that, that we're not gonna be putting a, a hard structure, a building, over top of any existing easements. No, the- Has that already been investigated? There's, there's not any... There's not any easements there. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for Mr. Robbins? Okay, thank you, sir. Staff, do you have any, any additional items? I guess the only, uh, response would be, we did not view this plan as some type of temporary or seasonal type of, uh, addition. Uh, it is shown as a full addition. We can certainly clarify that if necessary, but, uh, it does have a direct relation upon the parking situation, which, as I mentioned, is very close to, uh, the maximum here. Uh, so the conditions that we have on the agenda and on the revised staff report, obviously, we will look at those numbers very closely for this. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. I just had one other question. Mr. Holmes? Yep. Based on what you're, you're, Mr. Salih's saying, once you look at those, uh, the, the building square footage and the parking statistics, and if the, there are some parking issues, then what do you guys, not approve, or? It, it could be, um- Or you reduce the size of the building. Exactly. It, it could affect the size of what's a permanent enclosure versus out, uh, continuation of the outdoor seating. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Owens? Uh, I'm not sure if this would be for Mr. Salih or maybe traffic engineering, as far as the new curve right there where it ties into the, uh, where the speed bump is, uh, in the lower left hand, is, is that, uh, traffic okay with that? As far as, you know, it seemed like it juts out a little bit. Um, we didn't talk specifically about retaining the speed bumps, but we tried to locate them on this drawing as close as we could from the aerial photography. Um, there wasn't a lot of distance between the speed bump you see in the lower left and the existing canopy. Uh, but we did think it important to have that new curb extend in front of the existing canopy given how close it is to the current curb there. Uh, that geometry, certainly, I think, with traffic engineering sign-off, could change, but that was, uh, an issue the staff felt fairly important was that we needed to increase that distance. My question was only in regards to how it ties in. The new would tie back into the old curbing. Gotcha. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Okay, at this time, we'll, uh, close this portion of the hearing and, um, entertain further discussion by the Commission and or emotion. Uh, you've heard the presentation, uh, by staff and petitioner. Subdivision committee has recommended approval. We have revised recommendations on the, uh, uh, pink handout. Uh, condition 17 has been modified. The first portion has been stricken, uh, and that seven, uh, condition 17 reads, "Identify the additions, propose floor elevation information." Um, with that, uh, chair will entertain a motion. Ms. Copeland? Yes. I have something else to say. Yes. There's a two story building there where they give dance lessons upstairs, and children take dance lessons. Isn't this right? I'm pretty sure it is. Uh, so you have a number of young children coming in and out of that building, and I would be a lot more comfortable with nine and a half feet in width and reducing the addition somewhat, and then the parking works, and let's just not push ourselves into a health safety thing here. Uh, so that's just my thoughts on it. It's just too tight. It's not safe, in my opinion. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Any other, any other comments? Is anyone prepared to, uh, make a motion? Mr. Chairman? Yes. I make a motion that we approve this, uh, recommendation, changing number 17 to identify the additions proposed floor el- elevation information, and changing number 18 to a minimum of nine and a half feet in width. Second. 'Kay, we have a motion and a second to approve, um, as recommended with the 18 conditions, uh, revising condition 17, and changing 18 to nine and a half feet in width. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, whilst, while staff is getting set up, I have to, uh, recuse myself from this, uh, next application, um, on page, bottom of page seven, and I would like to, uh, turn the chair over to Mr. Day. I'm just gonna step outside. I believe this is our last item on the agenda. This is on page seven, DP2009-05, the Joyce Fields property. It's for a property located at, at 701 Red Mile Road. This is the current Ryan's Steakhouse location. Versailles Road is right up here. Uh, Red Mile Place comes off of Red Mile, just at this point down here. The existing location for the Ryan's is on this portion of the lot. The proposal is to redevelop Lot 1A, which is the Ryan's Steakhouse location with a 58,000 square foot retail and warehouse use. Uh, 8,000 is for the retail and the remaining 50,000 is for the accessory storage. Plan shows 99 parking spaces. The applicant is required, I believe, under his, uh, square footage for 91. Um, Subdivision Committee recommended referral of this plan due to the two remaining discussion issues. Uh, condition number 11, to discuss the extent of the development plan. The previous development, I belie- uh, the previous version that, uh, the, uh, engineer brought in did not include this area or the retention basin up in this corner. It was just this lot. Uh, we wanted to see the rest of the development plan to show retention, or the overall development plan that had come in previously. The purpose of the amendment is still just for Lot 1A, but the rest of the plan that has always been amended is now included. Number 12 was the, discuss the parking floor area. Um, there was some incorrect calculation based on the floor area for his parking. Um, the plan you, you saw, the Subdivision Committee had a total parking required of 88 spaces. Um, he's corrected his parking floor area, and has a minimum, or total parking required of 91 spaces. His three, his parking went up by three. His total spaces provided is still 99, so basically his overage has decreased by three. Uh, with those two, uh, discussion items resolved, the staff is comfortable recommending approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Does the applicant like to speak? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Andy Holmes with Midwest Engineering and we're representing, uh, Brian's Rental in their application today. We, uh, met with, uh, planning staff and the Division of Engineering, uh, because of the detention questions that came up, and reviewed the revised plan with, with them, and, um, the Division of Engineering has indicated that both the, the graphical representation of the detention shown plus Note Number 10 on the plan, where we've outlined our, uh, plan for mitigating the additional impervious area with additional detention is satisfactory, and, uh, we are in agreement with the staff's recommendations and conditions of approval. Thank you. Is there... Is there... Looks like Randall, I don't think there's anyone in the, uh audience, so we'll go back to the staff. I probably should clarify. Conditions 11 and 12 could be deleted. I didn't make that clear, but those two have been resolved and they can be deleted. Okay. Are there questions or comments from the Commission, or for either the, uh, staff or the applicant? If not, I'll call an end to this hearing and, uh, turn it over to the Commission for a motion or a discussion. Mr. Chairman, I move, uh, approval of DP2009-05 with the deletion of, uh, number 11 and 12 under staff recommendations. All right, there's been a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Opposed by likesine. The motion, uh, carries. Thank you. I'll now turn this back over to Randall. Thank you, Mr. Day. Um, next item on our agenda is the, uh, call and release of bonds, uh, performance bonds and letters of credit. You have a memo in front of you. Uh, and chair, at- at this time we'll entertain a motion for acceptance, call and release of bonds. Move to accept the- Mr. Chairman, so moved. I'll second. We have a motion and a second for the call and release of bonds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, our next, uh, next item, uh, beginning of each year we have to, uh, elect, uh, officers for commission, uh, in the zoning meeting in, uh, the last... The zoning meeting in November of '08, I had asked, uh, or I had appointed, uh, Ms. Lynn Phillips, uh, Mr. Frank Penn, and Mr. Mike Cravens, uh, to lead the nominating committee and to present to this body at this meeting a slate of, of nominees, uh, for consideration. Uh, so at this time, I'd like to, uh, turn it over to Ms. Phillips for a report. It's really hard. It was really tough. We're, we're proposing that the same slate of officers, um, be reelected, um, for this upcoming year. Second. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Um, we'll also i- if, um, I was gonna... Let's see if there's any nominations from the floor- ... prior to the second. Are there any nominations from the floor? Okay, seeing none, uh, Chair will entertain a motion to, uh, accept the, uh, slate of nominations. So moved. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to accept, uh, the slate of nominations. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Uh, look forward to, uh, serving and leading this distinguished body. Thank you very much. Um, at this time, we also have the delegation of the secretary's duties, and I would like to, uh, ask for a, uh, a motion, uh, from the commission that we delegate that duty to Mr. King at this time. So moved. Second. This, this group is quick. We have a motion and a second to delegate the, uh, uh, signature requir- uh, signature, uh, requirements, uh, of this body to Mr. King. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And I guess at this time, staff, any items? Chairman, only one announcement I'd like to make today. Um, remind the commission members that we will be having a work session next Thursday in this room. Um, you will recall, uh, we have quite an ambitious slate of special things that we intend to bring to you this year, so we'll be jumping in with both feet, uh, at that next Thursday. I did want to let you know that originally, uh, we had planned and scheduled for a joint meeting between the Urban County Council Planning Committee and the Planning Commission for next week. Um, at the request of, uh, Council Member Gordon, uh, whose workload really dramatically increased this month being named to chair the, uh, Stormwater Fee Committee, she has asked if, uh, Chairman Vaughan and, and the rest of the commission would agree to move that to February, which we have on your behalf. Um, so that will occur on February the 19th before the work session at 11:30 AM, and we could be getting more information about that. But, uh, again, so we'll have a regular work session at 1:30, um, right here next week. Great. Thank you. Mr. King. Mr. Chair. Yes. There's also an APA audio conference on Wednesday the 21st at four o'clock, and I don't remember the exact title, but it has to do with infrastructure and CIP, so that would be good for, uh, an hour and a half of credit, training credit for you all. And bar- And if anybody is interested in attending, please let me know by Tuesday afternoon. And the location for that? In our conference room. In your conference room. Okay, great. I assume, I g- I'm, I'm not gonna assume, I guess most o- most all of us are current with our, um, continuing education requirement for KRS. For the two-year period of 2009 and 2010, I don't believe anyone has any training. Fortunately, I think everybody completed their requirement by, uh, last December 31st. Good. Good. Thank you. Ms. Copeland? Ms. Rikers, would you please send us an email- Sure. ... to that effect about your, what you're pushing and, so we can respond. Be glad to. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much. Is there any, any- anything from the commission at this time? I just have a question. Is... The work session, the joint work session starts at 11:30? 11:30 on the, um- On the 19th? ... in February 19th. Right. Food will be served, and, um, after the joint meeting, you all just will move then into the regular work session that day. Okay. Well, I, I would hope as, as many of us can make it. I know that, you know, we, we give, uh, considerable amount of our time as is, and, uh, we felt that on a work session day, just backing up the- that day a couple hours would accommodate this, this joint meeting that, uh, uh, Council Member Gordon and I have been talking about for some months, and really wanted to, to, to have, uh, a meeting of these two bodies. So we hoping, we're hoping that it will be quite productive. So, okay. Well, with that, um, if there's no further business, then Chair will entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved, second. All right, we're adjourned. Thank you.