Good afternoon. I'd like to, uh, call to order the May 14th meeting of the Planning Commission. And at this time, we will have the approval of the, um, March 12th, March 26th, April 9th, April 23rd, and April 30th, uh, meeting minutes will be considered at this time. I'd like to call the commission's attention to those minutes. If there are any corrections, clarifications, revisions, um, those will be entertained at this time. Mr. Chairman. Uh, if I may, uh, the March 26th, 2009 minutes, uh, page 11 in the first paragraph, um, the last sentence in, in the, uh, third line of the, of the, uh, on the page there, I'll put it that way, where it states, "And the petitioner would like to have the ability to use the church for temporary housing or convention purposes if necessary." Uh, I think, one, that should be, "For convention purposes," and I would like to see it gr- read, uh, uh, "The ability to use the church for temporary housing for church-related convention purposes if necessary." Thank you, Mr. Owens. Did we get that, uh, clarification? Th- so the wording -- the wording again, if I may? Um, changing just the last part of it, temporary housing for church-related convention purposes, if necessary. Okay. For church-related convention purposes? I think that was... I, I, I believe that was the intent, okay. Thank you. Are there any other , excuse me, are there any other clarifications, corrections, revisions to the minutes? Okay, chair will entertain a motion at this time for acceptance of the minutes. Mr. Chairman, uh, if there's no other corrections or additions, I'll move for approval of the minutes. Um, ba-ba-ba-ba, where did all those minutes go to? Minutes, uh, for March 12th, 2009, the corrected minutes for March 26th, 2009, April 9, 2009, April 23rd, 2009, April 30th, 2009. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as read, uh, with a note of correction for the March 26th. 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, the commission will, uh, entertain requests for postponement or withdrawal. Postponements or withdrawal. I'll lead. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Uh, page one, item one, plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs, request a one-month postponement. June 11th, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Uh, Mr. Salley, is that correct, June 11th, is that- Yes, sir. That's your next meeting devoted to subdivision development plan. Thank you very much. We have a request for a one-month postponement for plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs. This is for property located at 4574 Harrisburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a one-month postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2008-71P to the June 11th meeting. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. On page two, under final subdivision plans, item A, plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate Lot 1, request a one-month postponement till June 11th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement of plan 2008-76F, Bogey Estate Lot 1. This is for property located at 5846 Old Richmond Road. Is there anyone in the audience that'd like, that would like to speak to this request for a one-month postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2009-78F, Bogey Estates Lot 1, until June 11th, 2009. Second. We have a motion and a second to, uh, postpone plan 2008-76F for one month. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. On page three, item D, plan 2009-27F, the Reserve at Walnut Grove Unit 1C, request a one-month postponement till June 11th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a one-month postponement of plan 2009-27F, Reserve at Walnut Grove Unit 1-C, located at, uh, 3820 Hatfield Lane. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, move a one-month postponement of plan 2009-27-F till June 11th. We have a motion and a second to postpone for one month. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. On page five, under development plans, item A, this is DP 2009-18, Richardson Properties request an indefinite postponement. Thank you man- thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for an indefinite postponement for DP 2009-18, Richardson Properties. This is for property located at 150 and 390 Childsburg Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for post- indefinite postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for indefinite postponement of DP 2009-18, Richardson Properties amended. Second. We have a motion and a second for fo- indefinite postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And on the top of page six, item B, DP 2009-26, Beaumont Farm Unit One, Section Five amended, request a two-month postponement to May 28th. I mean, two week. Got carried away. Two weeks to May 28th. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We have a request for a two-week postponement for DP 2009-26, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 5, uh, for property located at 3194 Beaumont Center Circle. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a two-week postponement? Chair will ent- seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a two weeks postponement for DP2009-26 Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 5 to be May the 28th. Second. We have a motion and a second. 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. Kaley. Are there any other requests for postponement or withdrawal? Mr. Martin? Uh, Mr. Chairman, if I could direct the commission's attention to page four. It's Item G, Plan 2009-39F, Ramsey Sullivan property, Unit 3, Section 2, Lots 33 through 45. We have received a written request from that applicant for a one-month postponement. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Um, eh, I assume that's from the, uh, applicant, the written request? It is the applicant. Yes, sir. He has made the request. Yeah. Thank you, sir. We have a... We have a request for a one-month postponement, uh, via written request f- from the applicant to the staff for Plan 2009-39F, Ramsey Sullivan Unit 3, Section 2, Lots 33 through 45. This is for property located at Meadowsweet Lane and Kitten's Joy Circle. 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'd like to move one-month postponement of Plan 2009-39F, Ramsey Sullivan property, Unit 3, Section 2, Lots 33 through 45, Kearney Hall Amended. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. And one more item on Page 6 of your agenda, Item C, DP2009-27, Ramsey Sullivan property. We have also received a written request from the applicant to postpone this plan for one month. Looks like June 11th is stacking up here. Yeah. Um, we have a request, be a written request, from the applicant to the staff for a one-month postponement for DP2009-27, Ramsey Sullivan property, uh, located at 2663 and 2671 Kearney Ridge Boulevard. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to th- to this request for a one-month postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of DP2009-27 to the June 11th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other requests for postponements or withdrawal? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Okay. At this time, we'll, uh, entertain our L- Land Subdivision items, and, uh, first item, of course, is our consent agenda. And at this time, I would like to, uh, turn it over to Mr. Salih to re- to review the applications, uh, that may qualify for the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, good afternoon. Even with all those postponements, there are still a number of items, uh, that qualify for your consent agenda this afternoon. First appears on Page 2, it is Item B, Plan 2008-31P, a preliminary subdivision plan for Lexington Housing Authority for property at 898 Georgetown Road. This plan has been recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. There are several final record plats also eligible for your consent agenda. The first appears on Page 3, Item B, Plan 2009-25F, The Reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1A. The next item on your meeting agenda also qualifies. That's Page 3, Item C, Plan 2009-26F, The Reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1B. Another final record plat is on Page 4, Item F, Plan 2009-38F, The Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust, Rabbit Run Amended. That is for property located at 1950 Fort Harrods Drive and 3598 Rabbit Foots Trail. There's also one item I skipped over inadvertently, and I apologize. That is on Page 3, Item E, Plan 2009-28F, The Reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1D. Those three properties for the Walnut Grove Subdivision all have addresses of 3820 Hatfield Lane. In addition, there is one final development plan that qualifies for your consent agenda. It's on Page 6, Item D of your agenda, DP2005-45, New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit 16. This is for property located off of Stolen Horse Trace. There's also one minor development plan that qualifies for your consent agenda. It appears on Page 7, Item A of your meeting agenda, DP2009-29, Maple Leaf Subdivision, Unit 1, Lots 1, 8, and 9, Minor Amended. This is for property at 3140 and 3150 Maple Leaf Drive. All of these items qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda, unless there is a request either from planning commission, from the audience, or from petitioners or their representatives for a further discussion of any of these items. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Soli. You've heard the, uh, reading of the Consent Agenda. Um, is there anyone in the audience that would like ... Yes. Uh, I would like to have, um, Plan 2009-38F, the Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust, discussed. You'd like to have that, that heard today, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. We'll, we'll remove that from the Consent Agenda. Is there anyone else that would like to have applications removed from the Consent Agenda, from the audience? Thank you. Commission, any items, excuse me, any items you'd like to have, uh, removed from the Consent Agenda? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Plan 2008-31P, Lexington Housing Authority on Georgetown Road, I would like to have that property discussed in lieu of changes since it was first approved. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. We'll, uh, we'll remove, uh, Plan 2008-31P, and we'll have a hearing, a presentation on that as well. So, any other plans that the Commission would like to have heard? Mm-kay. At this time, the Chair will, uh, entertain a motion for acceptance of the Consent Agenda, uh, for May 14th, removing Plans 2008-31P, Lexington Housing Authority, 898 Georgetown Road, and Plan 2009-38F, the Davis Family Children's R- Irrevocable Trust, located at 1950 Fort Harris Drive and 3598 Rabbit's Foot Trail. Is there a motion from the Commission? Mr. Chairman, I move to approve of the Consent Agenda, uh, removing Item Plan 2008-31P and Item, uh, Plan 2009-38F from the Consent Agenda and approve the rest. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda with the noted, uh, plans to be, uh, fully heard. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we'll take a moment while staff, uh, gets set up for the first, uh, first application. I cut my lights off. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, on page two of your agenda, Item B is Plan 2008-31P, Lexington Housing Authority at 898 Georgetown Road. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. Um, it has been brought back to the commission for reapproval. Have you got me? Yeah. There we go. This property is located out on Georgetown Road, headed towards New Circle Road, which is just a little to the north of this property. Across the road are, uh, community action agencies. I believe Head Start and that sort of thing is located. There is Douglas Park here to the rear of the property. It is approximately 3.2 acres gross, um, and about 2.2 acres net. They are proposing a street here, as you can see, off Georgetown, to loop through the property with 17 lots. This is a pedestrian connection to Douglas Park, a green space area. They are proposing pavers through here on the property. It is a one-way circulation through. A rain garden and some other items are being proposed with this development. Again, it is a Housing Authority development. The land itself is owned by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Uh, their intent, as we understand it, is to build single family homes here, utilizing various nonprofits in the community to do so. The plan was presented to you before for approval. Uh, it is now back, as I said, before you for reapproval. It was recommended for approval by the Subdivision Committee. The conditions, as you can see on your agenda, are very standard. These are primarily cleanup conditions, and, in fact, the applicant has met several of them with the new submittal. And if there are any questions, I'll be happy... Thank you, Mr. Martin. ... to answer. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Copeland? Yes. Mr. Martin, do you have a copy of the Comprehensive Plan that you can put up for us? Did we... We will certainly find one. Oh, you don't have one on the board? Um, I think it's- I do not- ... important how this property, um, or this parcel of land relates to downtown and to the Lexington T- Community College. That's my point. Mm-hmm. Yes, ma'am. Well, that's okay, I've got -- I've got the scoop for my points. If -- and you'll just have to trust me that I'm telling you the truth. Yes, ma'am. This property that we're talking about is three and a quarter inches by my ruler on that map over there from Courthouse Plaza, which is 1.75 miles. Does that sound right to you? Sounds ballpark, yes ma'am. Okay. And the new campus that's going to be where the community college is located is go- at 3rd and Newtown is one and three quarter inches, which is one mile from this. Does that sound right to you? Again, yes ma'am, it sounds -- i- it's in the area, yes ma'am. Okay. Would you call that a walkable distance, both of those, walkable distances? In planning, since you're a planner, would you call that a walkable distance? Yes. However, as a planner, as y- I'm aware of community attitudes and people's attitudes and they sometimes are not, uh, compatible with planners'- Okay. ... views of what's walkable. Okay. That's all. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Are there any other questions for Ms. Copeland? I'm sorry, Mr. Martin? Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to this application since we... Petitioner? Mr. Chairman and members, Commission, uh, Mark McCain with Sherman Carter Barnhardt. There, there's some things that, that have gone on with this property that I wanna make sure everyone's aware of it Tom didn't quite hit on. Uh, when this property first came about, uh, there were several community meetings that took place, uh, between the, uh, people and the neighborhood, the design team, the Lexington Housing Authorities, some potential builders, and there were several schemes that were looked at for this property. Ultimately, this was the one that we c- that was chosen to go with. Uh, while the lots may look like they're larger, they're, the depths are only 80 feet on one side and 90 on another. They are wider lots, but reasoning for that is to put the driveway on the sides of the home. That keeps the, uh, look of the house from being what's been referred to many times as a snout house, where you have a garage out front. Uh, that was all part of the design plan for this. Also, uh, as, as Tom said, these, uh, these houses are planned for nonprofits. Uh, there's some unique features about this. Mr. McCain, yeah, um, there we go. If you look at this, uh, drive that comes in, it is a one-way system. Uh, it has a nice boulevard in the middle. And in that boulevard, we've done some unique things with that and the road. The road has, uh, and this will be the, the first road I'd like to add, uh, that will be publicly, publicly dedicated to the City of Lexington that has pervious pavers put in there. These pervious pavers help with water quality. Uh, they're, uh... and it's something that goes to, I guess, the educational aspect of the consent decree. Also, we have the, uh, the rain garden that's there. We have a rain garden in place that's also meant to help with water quality and to help with the consent decree. So the plan has some, some really nice features to it, uh, and I just wanted to share that with you to make sure you knew the full scoop of what was going on. Thank you, Mr. McCain. Thank you. Uh, are there any questions for Mr. McCain, Ms. Phillips? Mr. McCain, I've, I serve on the other committee, so I've not seen this plan before. Um, are the pervious pavers gonna be used through the entire property or it... you kind of made the, a motion that it's only gonna be in that latter- It's, it's- ... at the turnaround section? it is in the latter part of that and then- And also, are the rain gardens, uh,- It's in the latter- ... of the median- ... part of this development, this water kind of floats down this way, uh, and these pavers will actually pick up the water right away. You could dump a five gallon bucket of water on it, and it immediately goes through, and it goes through the stone underneath. The actual detention is held underneath those pavers, the wa- the, the water volume. And it's cleansed through the, through the stone that's there. Uh, so as the water comes down, it gets into this area and that's where it's captured. Now, there are a couple places here and a couple places here. We've got det- uh, water that hits here, there's... the, the, the break in the watershed is at about this point, so this comes forward and it goes into the system out that way. Now, the rain garden, as you can see, is here in the blue area. We have a sidewalk circulation system that goes through that with a little foot bridge that goes over the rain garden. So I think it will become somewhat of a, a, a community space that, that people who live in the neighborhood can take pride in. Uh, I think that with the educational aspect of what we're showing here, we, we have also put into our plans a large sign display. Uh, it's a place that you could take kids, uh, talk to 'em about storm water, and educate them, uh, about the storm water process and, and water quality and water volume. What is the green triangular shaped piece of the turnaround? This is just an open greenway right here that opens up to the park, and there's a sidewalk system that goes to park. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McCain. Are there any other questions? Mr. Holmes? I just have a couple of questions. I mean, I guess, what, what are the size of the lots or I guess, the average size of the lots you got there? They're, they're about 60 foot in width and 80 feet on one side, 90 on the other. And, uh- The buildable area is, is, um, uh, depth 45 to 50 feet. And the width, um, well, it's 60 feet minus the side, or the side yards, five yard, five foot, Tom? Side yards, five feet? So 50 feet on that minus, say, a 12-foot driveway, two foot, two or three-foot grass strip between that and the house. And what's the zoning classification for that area? Um, what, what was it? It's R3. R3. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Uh, Mr. Cravens? Yes, the, um, the pervious pavers you have there and, and all that system, does that, um, eliminate some of your, uh, concrete pipe and catch basins and things? It, it does, and it eliminates, uh, the, the need for a detention basin also. Uh, we can, we can increase the amount of area that we can put another house on by not having to have a detention basin on this, on this lot. Uh, these things seem to work real well. We've, we've put some in at the management building of, of Bluegrass Spindale. They look great. The City of Versailles has installed them on, on publicly dedicated streets. They look great. They're very durable. Uh, and they, they seem to be working well. They're, they're a very exciting thing in the way of water quality. Thank you, Mr. McCain. Are there any other questions for Mr. McCain? Yes, how many, how many homes can be built here? I believe it's 16, 16 homes. Okay. And part of the reason why we have, in my opinion, huge downtown lots is because we're parking the car beside the house. Is that right? Uh, I can't answer that. I, I guess. Okay. Well- I, I don't know why people are making bigger lots. Maybe they sell better, maybe they're ... I don't know. Well- There's various reasons. F- from what's been coming in front of us, this is a really big lot, particularly when it's one mile from the new campus and one and a quart- three-quarters miles from downtown. It's at the hub. If you, if you'd put a circle on top of the comprehensive plan and the rate- the diameter was 1.7 miles and the center of it was the courthouse, it's all yellow. It's all high density or either high density or medium density. And this ... But those are grandfathered in. New things are like Hanover Townhouses and high density living, just like what's happened on Main Street. I question why we're doing ranch houses so close to downtown. Mm-hmm. So, is there a reason? Uh, the ... As I had said before, there w- there were multiple meetings, and this was the design plan that everyone decided on and liked. But for every square foot that we use in a housing lot here in town, that's a square foot we don't have somewhere else outside of town. And inside New Circle Road, we need to be denser. Mm-hmm. Um ... Well, I would say that this is compatible with what's in that neighborhood. Uh, I can't argue with, with what you had said, but, but this is compatible with other lots that are in that neighborhood, in, in that surrounding area. 60-foot wide lots? Uh, it's compatible with what's down at the, the Arbors, uh, what's across from the Arbors, um, there's a- Mm-hmm. That's my point. Uh- Those are the only place inside New Circle Road where we have that big a lot. Mm-hmm. That's, that's getting right to the point of it. Mm-hmm. Um, if we could do smaller lots, I'm appearing to your better angels or the better angels of the Lexington Housing Authority, if you could reduce the lot and become trendy, which all the rest of us are doing, we could have so much more affordable housing in this space and in other spaces. Mm-hmm. And not only affordable to buy, but affordable to live in, maybe attached, maybe two-story, uh, smaller yards to keep up. All of your living energy expenses would be reduced also. If you stack up rather than out, you'd use less land, be more affordable to buy, more people could live there, and it would be more affordable to live there for the long haul. Um, uh, I- That's all I've got to say. I'm just very surprised that we keep doing this for the Lexington Housing Authority and nobody else. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Any other questions for Mr. McCain? Thank you, Sir. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this, uh, this application? Okay. Staff, you have any, any additional items? Okay. All right. Okay. You have before you, uh, this, um, this is a request for reappro- reapproval, um, there were 14 conditions from the original approval. And at this time if there's no further comment or questions, Chair will entertain a motion from the commission. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2008-31P with the 14, uh, conditions, reapproval of this plan. Second. We have a motion and second for reapproval, uh, of Plan 2008-31P. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. No. No. No. Okay. Can we... I heard two or three nos. Can we take, take a poll very quickly? Mr. Herms? Yes. Ms. Richardson? Yes. Ms. Whitman? Yes. Mr. Day? Mr. Penn? Yes. Mr. Owens. No. Ms. Phillips? Mr. Cravens? Yes. Ms. Copeland? No. Mr. Per? No. And Mr. Vaughn? Yes. I have eight yeses and three nos. Three nos, okay. Eight yeses, three nos, motion carries. Thank you. Afternoon. Next item on our agenda is on page four. It's Plan 2009-38F, Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust. This is an amended final record plat for property located at 3598 Rabbit's Foot Trail. The subject property is located at the corner of Harrisburg Road and Fort Harris Road. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide lot three, so... Which is the entirety of this portion all through here, into two lots, creating lot four, which is for the clubhouse, which was granted through a BOA, uh, hearing, is to subdivide it right along there. Additionally, the purpose of this plat is to release and relocate sanitary sewer, sanitary sewer easements here to go around these two units in this area, changes in this location, up through here. There is no other change to any utility easements on this plat that were previously recorded in the original final record plat. The subdivision committee recommended approval subject to our standard sign-up conditions in addition to six cleanup conditions a- as listed on your agenda. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any questions for, for Chris at this time? Thank you, sir. Petitioner? I'm sorry, Ms. Phillips. Um, Mr. Taylor, the, um, I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. The sanitary sewer easement goes from, um... It's starting down here. Uh-huh. And coming up around between these two buildings, right there and right there. Now- Is that the, is that the existing or that's the proposed? That is the proposed. The existing kind of went whoop, right all the way through. Oh, it goes under the building? Yeah, yeah. When they put ... When the development planning came back and revised and added those two buildings, they, they needed to do a plat to move the sanitary sewer easements out from underneath them. I'm just wondering why they didn't hook it up with a sanitary sewer easement on the back of the lots. We'll ask Rory. Thank you. Petitioner. Uh, Rory Kailey with EA Partners. Um, the ... This plat is solely just to divide off a piece of property, which is the clubhouse and the pool, from a bigger chunk of the remaining undeveloped property. We went through a board of adjustment to get that permission. A clubhouse cannot be a principal use on a piece on a lot. Um, uh, the reason I asked to have this discussed is I would request having the Kentucky American Water Company sign-off removed from this, um ... During construction, there was some grading on site and fill has been placed on one of their existing lines, uh- ... have been told that they would not provide a sign off for this plat, which is why I'm here to ask that there not, uh, be one of my required sign-offs. The building is existing. It has water service to it. Um, the issue with the water company is, um, based on construction, it's between the developer and the water company to come to a resolution. Uh, that easement doesn't have any impact on the plat at hand. We're just trying to create a, another lot around the clubhouse. Um, your sewer line that you're asking about, I believe it is breaking a different dis... direction. It is, um, it's, oh, I don't have a cool fancy pointer. Here. Okay. This was signed... This was the existing... Can you hear me if I talk that direction? That was the existing line and, um, to get these buildings in, we needed to reroute that to make this fit. Um, I'm assuming that this was a much easier fit to connect our buildings to than run it over and around on that side of the basin. I didn't do the plans, but that seems reasonable. Oh, oh, I'll go through that. And, um, you know, other than having the removal of Kentucky American Water Company, the other three utility easements have, um, I have two other sign-offs in my hand. The other one's being mailed to me. The property has got what we call a blanket easement on it. There's a note on the plat that says, "All areas not occupied by building shall be open to the utility companies." We typically do this with multifamily developments so that I don't have to try to draw a lot line or easement lines in through all the buildings. Um, that note still stays. There's no impact for any future easements. We're not requiring any or requesting any at this time. All the buildings we have have service. We just wanna create one new lot around the clubhouse. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. So I guess to summarize, uh, or- originally this from staff was a... did qualify for the consent agenda. This is an amendment. Purpose of the amendment was divide lot three into two lots, provide an access easement from lot four to Rabbits Forest Trail, and to depict what Mr. Taylor talked about, the release of the sanitary sewer easement. Mr. Kaley asked for this to be removed because you're wanting release of sign off by American, Kentucky American Water. Yes. Okay. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Kaley, Commission? Thank you, sir. Mm-hmm. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to this application? Yes, sir, if you'd come forward. Uh, my name is Greg Tomko. Uh, I'm an engineer and a project manager in charge of new development and construction for Kentucky American Water, and we wish to retain our w- our right to review these plans, these easements, and so forth. It's, uh, part of the normal sign-off procedure. Uh, we don't see why we should be exempted from it. Thank you, Mr. Tomko. Are there any questions for Mr. Tomko? Mr. Cravens? Mr. Tomko, I think Mr. Cravens has a question. Um, will you sign off on it if it meets what you're, your criteria? Will we sign off on it? If we review the easements and we find them to be our satisfaction, we will. Is that what... I guess, R- Rory, what, what did you say he wouldn't do? Um, I'd received an easement, or a, geez, an email saying that they would decline... Let's see. Um, un-... However, after consulting with Kentucky American Water, an engineering manager, as well as in-house counsel, unresolved concerns within that development regarding encroachments on the existing 24-inch main caused me to decline your request at this time. This was the request for a easement sign-off. I mean, we, we still got the blanket easement. I guess the question is, you know, if, if the, if their review is based over the fill material and what them, the developer work out, it shouldn't affect the plat. If we're requesting new easements, I could see why. I- I'm not familiar with this. No. Well, we got time. Yeah, I know. If you wanna talk about that, certainly. Okay, well, um, that may be, uh, after he consulted with our attorney and, and, uh, our engineering director. Uh, wasn't familiar with that email. Okay. But my boss, who I've consulted with before coming here and directed me to come here, said that we don't want to give up our right to sign off on easements. Understood. I thi- I think, uh, Commission- Considering this, this easement that we're in dispute over, we're considering it to be a separate issue from the right to sign off on easements. So if it's a separate issue, then maybe I'm confused. Why don't you sign off on the easement then? If it's, you're saying it's a separate issue from them dividing this off? That's my boss's instructions to me today. We're gonna treat this as a separate issue. Could I ask to have- Yes, Mr.-Mr. Penn, you have a question? Yeah, I'd like to ask staff, Mr. Taylor, uh, is it better for us to postpone this and let them work this out? None of us sitting here have the expertise to-to-to decide which is right and which is wrong here. No, and this is- Yeah. This is typi- well- I mean, we're all in here and this is- ... from planning standpoint, this is a-a dispute between the contractors in the field and what's on the plan. Uh, it's our standard practice to keep utility companies that sign off on record plats. Okay. As such, it was a- eligible for consideration on our consent agenda. Um, if the utility companies are requesting that they would like to stay on, we generally would accommodate that. Okay. We would prefer to stay on. I-I will say too, that we have made a proposal, uh, to the developer on this, and they have not responded to us. Thank you, Mr. Tomko. Any- are there any other questions for Mr. Tomko at this time? Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I could address Mr. Penn's question. Yes, Mr. Salih. The commission- the commission does have until, uh, the 8th of July to consider this plan, so certainly if-if you wish to postpone it, you have that ability today. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak to this application? Okay, um, staff, do you have anything else that you'd like? Okay. Petitioner? Okay. All right, um, as Mr. Salih had noted, uh, we do have till July 8th, if-if it be- if it's the wishes of the commission to postpone, to allow the, uh, utility company and petitioner to, uh, work through this. Um, staff, um, as well as subdivision committee has recommended approval subject to the 13 conditions, uh, condition seven, uh, requiring sign-off of utility companies. Mr. Cravens? Is-is the, uh, waterline in question on this plat, that-that- Yeh, it's ... Right here's the 20-foot water main easement that I believe is in question. This is a separate easement from the blanket easement that's denoted on the property. So there is a note on the property that states they'll have access to the entire open areas, but in particular, I believe the encroachment is related to this 20-foot water main easement, at least from our discussions with the applicant from Kentucky American. This plan does not propose any changes to that easement, though. Ms. Phillips? I just don't think that it's really good practice for us to allow particular utility companies, because of uniquenesses associated between property owners and contractors, to waive any kind of signature or approval of a- of a plat, so I would move that we, um, um, go ahead and approve this, not enabling Kentucky American's signature to be avoided from the plat, and there'll be time between the time of filing of this final plat and getting it signed off for you guys to work those things off- work those things out. So I would like to move approval, um, keeping Kentucky American's signature on the plat. I'll second the motion. Okay, we have a motion and a second, uh, to approve, um, plan 2008-9- I'm sorry, 2009-38F Davis Family, um, subject to the 13 conditions, noting that, uh, the se- sign-off of, uh, Kentucky American shall remain, uh, for this plan. Um- Question. Question? I'm gonna assume from what I just heard in the motion that they'll still have the sign-off and they'll still have to work it out between the two parties. Is that- am I- is that the assumption we're all under at this time? Yeah, there's- there would be no change to the- to the conditions as written. No- no changes. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Any other questions? Okay, uh, you've heard the motion and second. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Good afternoon. Hello there. Good afternoon. Um, if you turn to page five and look at item H, Plan 2009-40F Hamburg East, Lots 1 and 2, Baptist Hospital Development Amended. This plan is located, um, this is the Polo Club Boulevard extension that will be coming from the Secure Justice property, which will go across Man O' War and connect into Winchester Road. The purpose of this amendment was to dedicate the right of way of Polo Club Boulevard and to create two individual lots. One lot will be for Central Baptist, um, which is about 129 acres and it's owned ED. ... leaving the other lot, which is still agricultural, at 52.32 acres. This plan was taken in front of the subdivision committee and it was approved with 16 conditions. The first eight are the typical sign-offs from different individuals and the last eight are from our cleanup. Uh, item 16, though, they asked for a waiver, and I'm gonna let Tom give you the information on that waiver. Thank you, Cheryl. Any questions for Cheryl from commission? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, as Cheryl mentioned, item 16, under the conditions on this plan, is provided that you all grant the waiver request. I wanna show you briefly again, of course, here is the Polo Club Boulevard, which is currently under construction from Man O' War to Winchester Road. Here is the AR lot that Cheryl referred to, of 52 acres, and your 129-acre lot one, the Central Baptist Hospital proposed medical campus. The boulevard, as I said, is currently under construction. Uh, the waiver request will allow the applicant to record this plat and dedicate that right of way at- after it has been completed and accepted by the Urban County Government. The specific waiver is a request not to build the sanitary sewer to serve the lots. Now, you all have seen several of these waiver requests recently. Uh, Hamburg is one, where the daycare was. Uh, Providence Place, you heard one recently. Those were requests to not provide a lateral line. In effect, this is a similar request because the subregs do require that sewer service be provided to a lot when it is created. In this particular case, uh, there are several factors, uh, that go into this. One, the applicant is currently building the trunk system, which is part of the approved EAMP plan infrastructure. So that is not yet complete, but it is under construction. Secondly, the applicant has to wait until the pump station is completed that the Urban County Government is going to construct, and that is located north of Winchester Road on North Elkhorn Creek, and things will flow that way. So there's no pump station in place for the trunk line currently to carry any sewage to, and because there's no trunk line system, then there's no need for a local system at this time. In conjunction with that situation, of course, you will see a final development plan on lot one for the Central Baptist development. Lot two, which is currently zoned AR, could only be used for a single family home or farming operations. There will be, or will need to be, a zone change and a final development plan prior to any development on that property. So with those factors all taken into account, uh, staff does recommend approval of the waiver request. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Um, question, Mr. Penn? Yeah, Mr. Martin, in the letter to you from Quest, uh, it talks about number five. For some reason, the pump station construction gets delayed or development occurs on lots one and two that requires certain connection. Before 2012, the owner developer has a, uh, backup plan to install temporary pump station to serve the development until LFUCG pump station is completed. If they had to do the temporary line, by us granting this waiver, it also grants them the opportunity to build a p- a temporary line if poss- if need be. Is that the way I'm reading this? They would build the temporary if they needed to, due to the pump station that the Urban County Government needs to build is not completed, and therefore can't be used. And that would go back under the interstate to the Hamburg property? I wou- I believe it would. The engineer can answer those questions specifically. There may be other options. Uh, that would, of course, come to you during the final development plan stage when they discover, uh, the need for a temporary based on the status of the other pump stations. So capacity in- for that temporary line would not be an issue at this time? Well, not at this time, no, sir. Sewers, the only issue facing the sewers at this time is the fact that the trunk line is not complete, nor is the pump station. So we'd be giving them the opportunity to do the temporary sign if needed? If needed, but you will see a plan where that would be explained to you. You will see a final development plan where they will say, "We need the temporary pump station." Well, then why do we need the waiver at this time for the temporary pump station? I mean, for the temporary, uh ... The, the temporary pump station is not a subject to the waiver. They're just stating that they're prepared to do that should the schedule on the city pump station not be met. I just want to be sure. If the temporary line has to be built, we would see it and the capacity issue would come up at that time? Yes, sir. You would. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Tisher? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Keith Messenger, HGR Quest Engineers representing the owners. Uh, to answer Mr. Penn's question, we have, um, we have met with the engineering staff and done a preliminary study of the s- sanitary sewer basin that would be covered by this, and currently there is capacity available and we would build a temporary pump station if it became necessary. That decision would not be made probably until the summer of 2011. And depending on the schedule of LFUCG with the, uh, with the large pump station north of L- of, uh, Winchester Road. And we, we've got a couple of routes that we've explored that are possible. You know, we're not planning on building that because we're fully... Everything right now looks like everything's gonna fall into place and Central Baptist has a... When they purchased this property and start their development plan process, you know, they're s- they're a couple years out probably still, they're looking at. And right now the schedule fits, but if something were to change that would move our schedule up or LFUCG schedule fell behind, we do have a backup plan. And that's why I stated that in the letter. Let me ask you. Sure. Do exaction fees come into this? Yes. For the, for the infrastructure? Yes, sir. Thank you. Ms. Copeland? I'm sorry, uh, mis- Mr. King, did you have something over on this? Just a clarification. They do get exaction credits for infrastructure that they build pursuant to agreements, formal agreements they have with the Irvin County government. The temporary facilities, they would not receive exaction credits for. However, things that are the permanent facilities, uh, again, reviewed by a committee and subject to a written agreement with the Irvin County government are eligible for exaction credit. Right. Thank you, Mr. King. Ms. Copeland? Yes. I think it's important that we have this in the record. If we agree to the waiver, do you feel that we have also condoned the building of a temporary line? No, ma'am. Okay. The only reason I put that in the letter, we, we discussed this option over the last year and a half in getting to this point to build this with division of engineering. You know, what if all this doesn't happen and we have this large tract of land sitting here with a potential future owner, which should happen if this plaque gets recorded, wants to move forward, but things fall out of the way and something happens that the pump station does not get built that is planned or it falls a year or two behind? You know, this 129 acre development, if Central Baptist gets it going, is not gonna occur overnight. It would be a very slow buildup over time and the temporary pump station would be like a bridge to get them over that hump if something had to be built now and the pump station was not available for us. And, and they would, it would be built by the owners at that time, not ever- But right now we're just- Yes, ma'am. Right now we're just- ... you're just working on the waiver. We aren't giving a nodding approval to a temporary line. Yes, ma'am. We would have to get the pump station approved through engineering at that time. Right now, capacity exists for the temporary pump station. Okay, so- Will it two years from now? That depends on development in the area. Okay. And it would have to go through the entire development plan process through engineering to get approved. We've just preliminarily discussed it with staff and everybody sees, yeah, that's a viable option. If something, at that time, we would look at it then. And that decision is two years from now. Thank you, Ms. Copeland. Any other questions for Mr. Messenger? Anything you'd like to add? Uh, no, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, I see some other folks, uh, if wishing to talk, uh, speak to this plan. If not, uh, I'll ask staff. Staff, you have anything else you'd like to add? Okay, thank you. Okay. At this time, we have, um, we do have plan 2009-40F. Uh, there are 16 conditions. Um, uh, the subdivision committee recommended approval, and, uh, we also have a waiver. Um, staff has also, um, recommended approval of the requested waiver and have provided, uh, the two reasons, for the reasons provided, uh, one and two. Uh, at this time, uh, chair will entertain a motion if there are no further comments or discussion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for approval of plan 2009-40F Hamburg East Lots 1 and 2, Bas- Baptist Hospital Development with the 16 conditions included, including number 16 with the, uh, with the approval of the waiver for the, uh, reasons provided by staff on our brown sheet. Okay, we have a motion and second to approve, um, as well as granting the waiver. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page seven of your agenda, item EDP2008-20, the landing's amended, this is a final development plan that has been brought back to you for reapproval. It is a plan you have seen several times. It's located out on Lake Park Road, which runs west from Richmond Road, right at the new circle intersh- interchange. Uh, James Motors is at the front. ... uh, you've -- and we've seen James Motors recently. It was the waiver I referred to earlier, uh, as well as the extended stay motel you've recently seen in this area. This plan was brought to you for approval. Uh, it too was subject to a waiver. Uh, as you may recall, we discussed at length the termination of Lake Park Road. Uh, there was discussion later on about the shape of the lot and sewer service, all on this property. Uh, the proposal on the development plan is in this area. It's seven townhouses, two-bedroom townhouses. Uh, they will exist on their own lot, as they've shown in here. The plan was, uh, again, approved once before, recommended for approval. Uh, in that time, besides the waivers and those other items that have, uh, been important to this plan, it went to the Board of Adjustment, and you should have a handout, and it should reflect this layout right here that you see on the plan. Now, the Board of Adjustment did grant approval for this. It was necessary for the applicant to move the townhouses from here towards this property line. This drive aisle is now gone. You can see, and access will be off this drive aisle, with driveways into the townhouses here. The reason for that is there is a very large Kentucky American Water easement that runs through here for raw water. Again, the reservoirs are here. This sits at the end of the road, and it's a raw water line- Sure. Mm-hmm. Running from the river. It's been there for a while, and apparently, uh, wasn't p- perhaps platted, but deeded, and it took some research for folks to discover the problem. Staff is recommending approval of this plan, subject to the 17 original conditions, with a revision, and that is on the handout here, that you can see. We are recommending a change to condition 13, which states, "Clarify proposed building layout." In the original submission, we had some concern about how that was gonna work relative to the parking area and, uh, some other issues. Uh, we now recommend that it be changed either by eliminating the building envelope conflict with the vehicular use area and/or documenting the Board of Adjustment approval of a dimensional variance. And again, that has happened, and that is this plan right here. And to meet that condition, in effect, what the applicant needs to do is reflect the Board of Adjustment approval with this layout on the development plan, and that's why we're asking for that condition to be clarified, or revised. Pardon me. Thank you, Tom. Mm-hmm. Uh, so, so really the plan hasn't been updated to reflect Board of Adjustment. Is that what you just said? It has not. Okay. The Board of Adjustment approved a site plan for those townhouses, which will need to be incorporated into this development plan. Into this development plan for that lot, right? Yes, sir. Gotcha. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Cannon. Tom, help me understand, and, uh, I mean, I can guess, but is this resolve the building? I understand the building location. What's the lake conflict? Is there a, a, an easement there you can only build so close to the lake, or, or what is that? Well, that was actually from the original submittal, and they were too close into the lake area, and it was just a poorly rendition of the plan. So that's part of what the Board of Adjustment allowed 'em to do? Uh, no sir, it was a cleanup item for us. Okay, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. That refers to the building on the very bottom of the drawing there. It was that building that had the conflict. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Phillips? I just have a quick question just to educate me. Do we not have setback requirements? I mean, do we have, um, m- greater setback requirements because we're located adjoining a, um, a water reservoir for drinking water purposes? Well, uh, for the object of this plan, the amendment, there are setbacks. Now, we can't change those current conditions that exist along the reservoir, so the setbacks that do apply are in this area. And in fact, the Board of Adjustment waived- Yeah, I got that. Yeah, but- For the other buildings. None of this is a part of this amendment. This is just existing conditions for informational purposes. Do you have any other setbacks? We have a 25-foot setback- I see. ... off the floodplain. Okay. But we don't have any additional setbacks that I'm aware of off of the reservoir. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Um, any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Gary Rowland with Foster Rowland, and I'm, uh, in agreement with all of the comments and, um, conditions that Tom laid out. I, I do have one question though, and it, I, I guess it's, it may be a staff question or may not be, but do I still have the ability to make small changes to the perimeter of the plan? I mean, if a building changes six inches, but I keep the same square footage and the same general layout... I'm just, on the... and the reason I ask is on the initial plan that I've submitted, we had a building, a buildable envelope basically, and I haven't completed the finished design of the actual structures, and I just, you know, like to be able to keep a little bit of flexibility, and I'm just... I don't un- I don't know if this new note number 13 gets rid of any flexibility that I may have had before or, or if it increases it. I can't, um, I guess that's the question that I have. Um, would say that's Tom. Is that a question for... just so that you and Mr. Rowland are on the same page, I would think, so. It has been lately practiced to establish envelopes to allow some flexibility with moving some buildings. That we wish to be flexible, that sometimes frankly can be a two-edged sword, but, uh, the ordinance does require on a final development plan, and of course the BOA plan as you see it, is what was approved, so he should match that. Uh, if he wishes to have a building envelope, I believe we should deal with that now and it could be a condition of approval. 'Cause it's not, again, a building envelope isn't something that's just granted automatically by right or anything like that. How would we do that? Pardon? How would we put a condition in saying he's got a buildable envelope? I, I believe we could add it to the condition of clarify proposed building layout that we gave you and add wording to that. Um... I believe that condition 13 does allow for, um, still to retain a building envelope, but does have to be clarified. I think the clarification would have to be clear that he was not allowing the structure to be any closer to the side property line than the Board of Adjustment approved and it would have to clarify that the existing easement that has since been found since the commission initially approved this plan, was not being encroached upon. Given those two givens, I believe there is still the possibility of a building envelope that would respect the Board of Adjustment's decision and this new easement that's been discovered. There you go. Okay, thank you, m- I, I did not capture all that you said, but it sounded very good. Yeah. Yeah, can, can you translate that- I, I, I think the answer was yes. ... so we can go with this or not? Yes, I think condition 13 still will allow for a buildable envelope that will not conflict with the Board of Adjustment or the existing easement. So we don't need to add any verbiage here or ... It would be my contention condition 13 as it's on the board before you- Pardon? ... would still allow what Mr. Roland's asked for. Okay. I'm, I'm, I'm fine. Okay. Uh. So, so that answers your question of- Yes. ... the six inch. Okay, all right. Yes. Okay, good. Um, any other questions from commission? No one's left in the audience. Staff, you have anything else you'd like to add? Mr. Roland? Okay. We have, um, before us, um, a request for reapprove- uh, reapproval, uh, for DP2008-20, The Landings. Uh, there are 17 conditions with a clarification to 13, uh, on the gray sheet that we have in front of us. Uh, I think we've had discussion on 13, further discussion about conflict with existing easements, uh, in accordance with the BOA approval to allow Mr. Roland, uh, other actual building flexibilities. So, that, chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I, um, move, uh, reapproval of, uh, DP2008-20, uh, subject to the previous requirements and including the revision to, uh, condition 13 as is, uh, written. Mm-hmm. Second. Okay. We have a motion and second to approve. Uh, 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. Thank you. Okay. We also have, uh, um, our perform- recent release and call of bonds, uh, at this time, uh, on a memo dated May 14th. Chair will entertain a motion for acceptance. Mr. Chairman, I move the release and call of the bonds as presented on the memorandum. Second. We have a motion and a second, uh, for release and call of bonds. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. I guess our next item's commission item, um, public facility review. No, this is a public facility un-review. Um- Un-review, thank you. They sent, they sent a letter just notifying us that they were going to do the auction and that was about two weeks before they actually did the auction. And by the time we would have gotten a public facility review on the agenda, it was already done. So this is just to let you know that they did it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, indeed. So it's for informational purposes, I guess, at this point. Okay. All right. Um, staff, you have any, any other items? Nothing else, Mr. Chairman, except to remind you that, uh, you do have a work session scheduled next week. Regular time and place. Thank you, Mr. King. Yes. We'll talk about infield text amendments and a number of other items next week. I, I, I did want to say have we ... I guess, most commissioners have all of the information that's been, I guess, filtered through over the last few weeks? Yes. Okay. And if there's anything new, again, this is definitely a work in progress, but we will try to get as much to you ahead of time as we can. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Um, there's no further business. Chair will entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. All right. We're adjourned.