# Planning Commission Meeting - June 11, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · June 11, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/940 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/940?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-06-11 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 10,510 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 June 11, 2009, at 1:37 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Neill Day presiding. The meeting addressed six agenda items spanning subdivision plats and development proposals across the Lexington area. Of the six items considered, five were approved and one — Taylor Place (Stinnett Property) — was postponed, though a separate matter under the same name was approved. Over the course of the meeting, the Commission took a total of 16 votes, heard no public comments, and no formal presentations were recorded in the meeting record. ## Attendance The following members were present at the June 11, 2009 Commission meeting: - Neill Day - Ed Holmes - Frank Penn - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Marie Copeland - Mike Owens - Mike Cravens - Patrick Brewer - Carolyn Richardson **Absent:** Randall Vaughn, Joan Whitman No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions All votes at the June 11, 2009 Commission meeting were taken by voice vote and passed unanimously 9–0. The following members voted in favor of every motion: Neill Day, Ed Holmes, Frank Penn, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Marie Copeland, Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Patrick Brewer, and Carolyn Richardson. No nays or abstentions were recorded on any item. - **Minutes** – Lynn Roche-Phillips moved, Mike Owens seconded approval of the May 14, 2009 minutes. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 0:08] - **DP 2009-30 (Richardson Properties)** – Mike Owens moved, Lynn Roche-Phillips seconded postponement to June 25, 2009. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 1:42] - **PLAN 2008-71P (Hampton Springs)** – Frank Penn moved, Patrick Brewer seconded postponement to July 9, 2009. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 2:23] - **PLAN 2008-76F (Bogie Estate, Lot 1)** – Frank Penn moved, Patrick Brewer seconded postponement to July 9, 2009. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 3:27] - **DP 2009-34 (Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1)** – Ed Holmes moved, Carolyn Richardson seconded postponement to July 9, 2009. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 4:00] - **PLAN 2009-39F (Ramsey/Sullivan Property, Unit 3, Section 2, Lots 33–45)** – Mike Cravens moved, Frank Penn seconded postponement to July 9, 2009. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 5:12] - **DP 2009-27 (Ramsey/Sullivan Property)** – Patrick Brewer moved, Frank Penn seconded postponement to July 9, 2009. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 5:50] - **Consent Agenda** (excluding postponed items) – Frank Penn moved, Carolyn Richardson seconded approval. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 10:36] - **PLAN 2009-55P (Masterson Station, Unit 10 & Masterson Hills, Unit 1)** – Mike Owens moved approval subject to revised staff recommendations. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 30:58] - **PLAN 2009-57P (Taylor Place – Stinnett Property)** – Marie Copeland moved approval subject to 20 conditions noted on the agenda. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 47:35] - **PLAN 2009-27F (Reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1-C)** – Frank Penn moved approval with deletion of note 11. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 59:23] - **PLAN 2009-52F (Hi-Acres Shopping Center)** – Frank Penn moved approval of a waiver. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 1:04:44] Frank Penn then moved approval of the plan itself with 10 conditions. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 1:05:18] - **PLAN 2009-54F (Taylor Place – Stinnett Property)** – Marie Copeland moved postponement for two weeks due to lack of affidavit and sign posting. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 1:17:53] - **DP 2009-40 (Wolf Run Industrial Park, Lot 5)** – Mike Owens moved approval with 10 remaining conditions. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 1:24:36] - **Release of performance bonds and letters of credit** – Frank Penn moved approval. Passed 9–0. [timestamp: 1:25:42] ## Masterson Station, Unit 10 & Masterson Hills, Unit 1 **Plan:** PLAN 2009-55P [timestamp: 12:21] This agenda item concerned a proposed amendment to revise the street and lot layout for the Masterson Station, Unit 10 and Masterson Hills, Unit 1 developments, converting a townhouse configuration into single-family lots. Key speakers on this item included **Rory Kahly**, **Marie Copeland**, and **Mike Owens**. The discussion centered on the plan amendment's proposed changes to the subdivision layout, which involved reconfiguring lots originally designed for townhouses into single-family residential lots. Prior to the full Commission discussion, the **Subdivision Committee** had reviewed the item and recommended referral rather than immediate approval, citing outstanding questions regarding: - A **pedestrian easement** associated with the revised layout - The **density change** resulting from the conversion of townhouse lots to single-family lots These concerns prompted further deliberation among commissioners and key speakers during the meeting. The pedestrian easement question likely related to how public access and connectivity would be maintained or altered under the new lot configuration, while the density change raised questions about consistency with the original development plan and applicable zoning standards. Despite the Subdivision Committee's referral recommendation, the Commission ultimately **approved** the plan amendment following the discussion. ## Taylor Place (Stinnett Property) **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2009-57P [timestamp: 32:03] The Commission took up discussion of the Taylor Place (Stinnett Property) plan, which centered on the construction of a private access easement. Key participants in the discussion included Tom Martin, Rick Moore, and Hillard Newman. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the plan and recommended referral back to the Commission due to concerns surrounding the proposed access easement. Those concerns formed the basis of the Commission's deliberations during this meeting. Following discussion of the access easement issues raised by the Subdivision Committee, the Commission ultimately voted to approve the plan. ## Reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1-C **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2009-27F [timestamp: 49:00] The Commission took up agenda item PLAN 2009-27F, concerning the Reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1-C. The discussion centered on the development's compliance with open space requirements, with adjustments having been made to the lotting configuration and open space allocations in order to bring the plan into conformance. Key speakers in the discussion included **Tom Martin** and **Dick Murphy**, who addressed the modifications that had been undertaken to meet the applicable open space standards. The presentation focused on how the revised lotting and open space layout satisfied the requirements under review. The Commission ultimately **approved** the plan following the discussion. ## Hi-Acres Shopping Center **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2009-52F [timestamp: 1:00:17] The Commission took up PLAN 2009-52F, concerning the Hi-Acres Shopping Center, as a discussion item focused on revising building lines to bring the property into compliance with zoning requirements. Key speakers on this item included **Chris Taylor**, **Tom Martin**, and **Roger Ladenburger**. The discussion centered on the proposed revisions to the site's building lines, which were presented as necessary to meet applicable zoning standards. A notable element of the discussion was a **waiver request for engineer's certification**. The basis for the waiver was that no public improvements were planned as part of the project, making the standard certification requirement inapplicable to the scope of work being proposed. The Commission ultimately **approved** the item, including the requested waiver for engineer's certification. ## Taylor Place (Stinnett Property) **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2009-54F [timestamp: 1:15:08] The Commission took up PLAN 2009-54F, concerning the final record plat for the Taylor Place (Stinnett Property). Tom Martin addressed the Commission on this item. The matter was not advanced for approval at this meeting. The item was postponed due to the absence of two procedural requirements that had not been fulfilled prior to the meeting: the required affidavit had not been submitted, and sign posting had not been completed as required. As a result of these outstanding requirements, the Commission postponed action on the final record plat. No further substantive discussion or debate on the merits of the plat was recorded at this time. ## Wolf Run Industrial Park, Lot 5 **Agenda Item:** DP 2009-40 [timestamp: 1:18:29] The Commission took up discussion of a development plan for Wolf Run Industrial Park, Lot 5, which proposed designating an existing building as an office warehouse project. Key speakers on this item included **Chris Taylor** and **Mike Ladies**. The item had a procedural history worth noting: the Subdivision Committee had previously recommended **postponement** of the plan due to documentation issues. However, by the time the item came before the full Commission, staff had reversed course and recommended **approval**. The Commission ultimately voted to **approve** the plan. *Note: Additional detail on the specific documentation concerns raised by the Subdivision Committee, the nature of the debate among commissioners, and the precise arguments made by Taylor and Ladies is not available in the source materials beyond what is summarized above.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of minutes from May 14, 2009 - **DP 2009-30** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of DP 2009-30: Richardson Properties to June 25, 2009 - **PLAN 2008-71P** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of PLAN 2008-71P: Hampton Springs to July 9, 2009 - **PLAN 2008-76F** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of PLAN 2008-76F: Bogie Estate, Lot 1 to July 9, 2009 - **DP 2009-34** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of DP 2009-34: Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 to July 9, 2009 - **PLAN 2009-39F** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of PLAN 2009-39F: Ramsey/Sullivan Property, Unit 3, Section 2, Lots 33-45 to July 9, 2009 - **DP 2009-27** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of DP 2009-27: Ramsey/Sullivan Property to July 9, 2009 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of Consent Agenda excluding postponed items - **PLAN 2009-55P** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLAN 2009-55P: Masterson Station, Unit 10 & Masterson Hills, Unit 1 - **PLAN 2009-57P** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLAN 2009-57P: Taylor Place (Stinnett Property) - **PLAN 2009-27F** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLAN 2009-27F: Reserve at Walnut Grove, Unit 1-C - **PLAN 2009-52F** — passed (9-0): Approval of waiver for PLAN 2009-52F: Hi-Acres Shopping Center - **PLAN 2009-52F** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLAN 2009-52F: Hi-Acres Shopping Center - **PLAN 2009-54F** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of PLAN 2009-54F: Taylor Place (Stinnett Property) for two weeks - **DP 2009-40** — passed (9-0): Approval of DP 2009-40: Wolf Run Industrial Park, Lot 5 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Release of performance bonds and letters of credit --- ## Full transcript Um, I think we've got some minutes to approve for May the 14th. Are there any corrections or additions? I'm s- are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? If not, we'll take a motion to approve them as written. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the minutes of May 14th, 2009. Second. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed by like sign. Okay. N- now we'll go to th- the no discussion items. Uh, Bill, you- you do those? Mr. Chairman, I think there may be a few postponements requested today- ... uh, before we get to the consent agenda. I'm sorry. Oh, no problem. Can I... Anybody have any postponements that they'd like to bring forward now? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Fred Eastridge. I'm standing in for Carol Goese with the permission of John Barlow. She's, um, not available. On page six, item B, plan DP2009-30, Richardson Properties, I'd like to ask for a two-week postponement to the 25th. Uh, apparently, um, when some situation came up with Ms. Goese that, uh, the, um, infrastructure statement didn't get out to the commissioners, and we need to, uh, get that out. All right. Is there a motion for postponement until... For two weeks until June the 25th? Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP2009-30 until June 25th, 2009. Second. All right. The motion's made and second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed by like sign? All right. Any other withdrawals or postponements? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Kayley with EA Partners. Page one, um, first item there under preliminary plans, plan 2008-71P, Hampton Springs, request a one-month postponement to the, um, I think July 9th meeting. All right. There's been a request for a postponement of plan number 2008-71P, Hampton Springs. Is there a motion to, for a postponement? Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2008-71 to the June 9th meeting. Is it June or July? July, excuse me. July 9th? July 9th. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed by like sign? Motion carried. On page three, under final subdivision plans, item A, plan 2008-76F Bogey Estate Lot 1, request a one-month postponement to July 9th. All right. There's been a request for a postponement on plan 2008-76F, the Bogey- Bogey Estate Lot. Is there a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2008-76F for one month. That's a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed by like sign? Case postponed till July the 9th. And on page seven, top of the page, item E, this is DP2009-34, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1, request a one-month postponement to July 9th. All right. There's been a request for DP2009-34, Beaumont Farms, Unit 1, Section 1A. Is there a motion? Move for a one-month postponement of DP2009-34. Second. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed by like sign. Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? If not, I guess, do we go to the consent agenda? Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Does the staff have a postponement? That's right. On page three of your agenda, the bottom of the page, item C, plan 200939F Ramsey Sullivan property, Unit 3, Section 2, Lots 33 through 45, we have received a written request from the applicant to postpone that for one month. All right. We have, um, request for a postponement for plan number 2009-39F, Ramsey Sullivan property, Unit 3, Section 2, Lots 33 through 45. Is there a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, move to postpone plan 2009-39F, Ramsey Sullivan property till July the 9th. Second. All right. There's a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed by like sign. Thank you all. Any other- Uh, yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, on page five of your agenda, at the bottom of the page under development plans, item ADP2009-27, Ramsey Sullivan property amended, we have also received a written request from the applicant to postpone that for one month. All right. We have a request for a postponement for DP2009-27, Ramsey Sullivan property, uh, underpinnings, development plans, request a one-month- Is there a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone for one month DP 2009-27. Is there a second? Second. There's been a motion and a second to postpone. Please signify by saying, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by like sign. Okay. That it... All right, any other postponements or withdrawals? All right, now we'll move on to the consent agenda. If we can, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Even with those postponements, there's still nine items that qualify for consideration on your consent agenda today. The first two items are amended final subdivision plans that are recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on page four of your meeting agenda, item D, Plan 2009-51F, an Amended Final Record Plat for Secure Justice Unit 6, Lot 4 and 5, also known as Polo Club Center. This is for property at, near the corner of Man O War Boulevard and Polo Club Lane. The next item appears on page five, item F, on your meeting agenda, Plan 2009-53F, Autumn Ridge Unit 4, Section 2 Amended. This is for property on Forest Spring Court. There are a number of amended final development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on page six, item C of your meeting agenda, DP 2009-31, the Reserve at Walnut Grove Amended. This is for property that is a portion of 3820 Hatfield Lane. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on your consent agenda, page six, item D, DP 2009-33, an Amended Final Development Plan for the Adams property. This property is located at 3050 Helmsdale Place and 852 Campbell Lane. The next item on your consent agenda that has not been postponed is on page seven, item F. This is DP 2009-35, Brighton Place Shops Phase Two Amended. This is a final development plan for property 3090 and 3110 Todds Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on your consent agenda, page seven, item G. This is DP 2009-36, an Amended Final Development Plan for Thomas & King, also known as Tin Roof, for property at 303 South Limestone Street. Next item on your consent agenda is on page seven, item H of your meeting agenda, DP 2009-37, JM Downing Property, also known as Saint Luke United Methodist Church property. This is for a property at 2351 Alumni Drive. The next item on your consent agenda is page eight, item I of your meeting agenda, DP 2009-38, High Acres Shopping Center Amended. This is for property located at Bryan Station Road and Saint Anthony Drive. There is also one item recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee that appears at the end of your consent agenda. It's on page nine of your meeting agenda, item K, an Amended Final Development Plan for DP 2006-104, Wynburn Shopping Center, Unit 1E, Lot 1. This is for property located at 1100 Wynburn Drive. And of interest, this is the first item that falls under your new bylaw amendment regarding reapprovals. Uh, those items are, uh, available for your consideration at this time on your consent agenda, unless any member of the commission or member of the audience would wish to discuss any of these plans. Thank you. All right. Is, is there anyone in the au- in the, um, ex- excuse me, in the audience who would like to discuss any of these plans that are here? Is there anyone on the commission? I, I have one question. What do we do on the postponement on Beaumont? I specifically did not cover those. There are two items that you will see on your consent agenda that have been postponed. The first is the first item under number two, the development plan for Richardson Properties, and the other is three items below that, uh, the development plan for Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 1. Those have already been postponed and are not eligible. So they're not... They won't be considered in this? Yes, sir. That's correct. All right. Is there any questions? If not, we'll entertain a motion for the con- approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented with the exclusion of the three postponed items. Okay. There's been a motion for approval of the consent agenda. And a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by like sign. Okay, the consent agenda is approved. Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll go to the first item. Is that gonna be Masterson Station? Why, y'all wanna set up for that? And let us know when you're ready. Good afternoon. If you all turn to page two, um, item B is Plan 2009-55P Masterson Station Unit 10, Masterson Sta- Hills Unit 1 Amended. Uh, this is a preliminary subdivision. The purpose of this is to revise the street lot layout for some town homes and single family. This is located off of Sandersville Road, adjacent to the new school they've just built out in the Masterson Station area. The, um ... On the agenda we have that it was recommended for referral and after reviewing with the commit- um, with the new plan that they submitted, they brought in ... There. They submitted a new plan that removed several of the conditions. This plan here, um, they have shown this with all single family. In the previous plan that they had brought in, the, the area that they're trying to revise is this area here, where we have the townhomes. When we reviewed this, um, the new plan that they brought in with the changes, we were able to delete several items, if y'all look at your green copy. First few items are all, um, typical sign-offs. We can spl- delete number eight, 10, through 16. When this property was reviewed, we looked at, the discussion was about the density and we reviewed through there and we took and looked at this plan and compared it with here, with the new plan that they've submitted. And within the 16 acres that they were looking on this plan to revise this area here, there was a difference of about 24 lot or d- 24 dwelling units they were, they were gonna lose for this whole ti- area. So the staff, reviewing it, with that, we believe that the items that were marked off, this plan could be, um, uh, recommended for approval. Any questions? The, the one closest to you. Yes, sir. And the items are n- on the green sheet and the staff is recommending approval? Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. On the right-hand plan. Yes, sir. In the designated area that backs up to the school, both single family and townhouse lots, how many housing units or how many lots did we have on tho- um, on the old plan? This plan- Mm-hmm. ... here? I believe ... Hold on. Going down to the, I think there's a walk-in, um, trail place, a pedestrian walkway there. Stop at right there at the- Right. ... pedestrian walkway. How many lots are, from there up? We have 17 lots here and they have, um, 71 townhome units. But when this was originally brought in, this street was to continue through and they were gonna have a number of single family homes through here. Um, due to some changes when they were doing some groundwork, they found a cemetery, so they had to revise this area here. And what they did is they created townhomes, so that increased the density in this area, um ... Instead of the single family, they had to cul-de-sac and then increase the density here. So that's where I'm coming up with when you take and look at all this, we're gonna keep this here. And when you look at the difference here, there's only a loss of 24 lots. 24 dwelling units. Okay. Because you're factoring in the cemetery changes, right? Right. 'Cause they, th- m- m- we're gonna leave this the way it is. They're not ... That increased the density on this overall plan too. Okay. But we're still minus 24 lots. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Units. But, in answer to my question, when we jump from the right to the left- Yes, ma'am. ... just up above the pedestrian walkway, how many lots did we lose up there? Um, this sign here says 17. And over here we have 16 lots on this side. And over here we have the difference of 33 minus 16, 17 lots than on this side. Okay. So, we lost 17 lots above the pedestrian walkway? On the area backing up to the greenway. Any other questions? Uh, yes. If, if I may, yes. Um, trying to stay with apples and apples. With the new revised plan, there's, I think, 35 buildable lots? Yes. Okay. 'Cause of these two here, we counted those. And, and how many, how many units are on the right in the same area? Uh, you'll have 17, 19, plus then the townhome units. If- The townhomes was 41, I think you said? 71. 71. I'm sorry. So 71 townhomes and 17 single family lots? Yes, ma'am. So, apples to apples, we're, we're losing... ... but we increased our density. Now, 40, 40 to 50. That, but, you know- But that's not on the plan. That's, that's not on this plan and it hasn't been built yet. No, but it's gonna ... Okay. So, um, yeah. I, I'm just, right now, just looking apples to apples. Okay. Thank you. They still have it shown as that, on that plan. They're just changing this area. All right. Is there any other questions? I, I guess I, I just have one and it's probably kind of like Mike's. Uh, the, we don't have the, I'm gonna call it the units, or the part of the, where the... Let's say so- south of, uh, Tibbs Trail. Will that be added to this one on the right? Excuse me, on the left, at a later date? So we're not- They're not amending any of that. Just, I use this just because this was the previous plan that they brought in with these changes. And I was just explaining that when this street was originally designed, laid out, it was to go through and just be single family dwelling units. I'm just saying they increased the density here also. I know that there is a density- I, I understand. I just think it's confusing that we don't have it over here too, but I mean, that's- Right. It's not part of the ... They're not making any changes. It's gonna s- that's what they're gonna go with at this time. Okay. Excuse me. Mike. One, one more question. Um, this whole area is recommended for medium density? Yes, sir. And it's all zoned R3? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, thank you. I believe that's it. Are there any further questions? Is there a motion? Rory Cahilly. Oh, Rory. Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, put, I told you you had to walk me through this thing. Uh, Rory Cahilly, with EA Partners, uh, here representing this plan. Um, I'm in agreement with the revised conditions and, um, request approval. I guess I'll try to answer any questions you might have of me. Are there any questions for the applicant? Marie. How did we get to single family on one side of the street, and town homes on the other side of the street? Um, the area you're looking at has been changed at least three times. And originally, we had all single family out here. Um, then the school was interested. We had a reservation for the school reservation, so we had to change the plan. Um, reservation expired. Filed, went back to our original plan. School board came in, took the land, built their schools, so we had to amend our plan. At that time, we put in, um, some single family back and up to the school, and over near the greenway, uh, some townhouses. We've got, um, throughout Masterson Station, I've lost track of the number of acres. I know there's 1500 units put in out here, at least. And we've got townhouses scattered around throughout. There's some up, uh, near the clubhouse at unit four. And they're throughout the development. And so in the back here, we have these two sections. Um, the developers now would like to reduce the number of townhouses, which is why we're sh- taking the ones, um, from the greenhouse and, uh, putting those into single family. But, I mean, the reason, uh, why you would do one versus the other is you just gotta pick your areas. The, the spacing from Emnet Drive to the greenway does not, uh, look at, for double streets. You look for double frontages. If you're gonna build a street, you wanna be able to get units on both sides. The townhouses were put in there, and we packed in as many townhouses as we could fit into that. Townhouses are not so desirable anymore, so now that you look at the single family lots, part of what we've done is Emnet Drive has shifted away from the school, creating, the original lots got deeper, and then the lots that are replacing the townhouses are deeper than you'll usually see, but there's no way to get that extra street and get your extra layers of lots in there this way. Why weren't townhouses put on both sides of the street? Or, to begin with? Or... Not what the owners, developers were looking to do. Okay. But there wasn't anything from, there isn't any environmental reason for this other than you put townhouses backing up to the greenway? Correct. They tried to get the school to take it, thinking they'd use it as an outdoor classroom, but they didn't want it. So, I mean, we had to put together some plan. Uh, typically when you see us come in with the first plans, you're gonna see us maximize density. Because it's much easier to lower your density later through the process than to come back to this group and ask for higher densities. So when you see all our development plans, we're always gonna maximize everything to start with. So this is a two-step zoning dance? Well, with the subdivision plans, yeah. We've got subdivision plan for, um, at least another 400 units. We've, we've gone through, we've zoned it all. We've given subdivision plans. So as the, we're, we're ready to go as the market's ready. Mostly you'll see 40 foot lots. Throughout all of Masterson, we've got, um, R1E, R1D, R3. We go from 60 foot lots to 40 foot lots, townhouses. We've, we've, the Masterson Station development's got the range of different types. Uh, I think what we're showing here is a mixture of of 45s, somewhere in between. And as you talk about density, if you have 40-foot lots, you, with your, typically with your dedicational streets and whatever greenways you have, you can get six units to the acre. As your lots get bigger, and if you do 60-foot lots like the R1, uh, D zone, you get four units to an acre. And so the, the overall of this is we're well within our medium density, you know, looking at it with having a road, um, just, uh, two and a half things, 2.8 acres of greenway. You know, if, if you're only gonna look at the small piece, the density numbers may not be where you're wanting them to be, but we've got the entire, you know, Masterson Station project. But didn't you say that we always start with, um, high density and then downgrade from there? Yes. That, that's, we, we like to get as much on the books ahead of time as we can. And then, so this- If, if the market changes- ... this move to, uh, bigger lots and going from townhouses to single family, we should have anticipated that might happen. Well, if you can anticipate the market, sure. Yeah. But, I mean, you know, we go back and forth all the time, depending on who's needing what. Are there, are there any questions for Ryan yet? I'm, I'm sorry, Mr. Kaley, uh, you, you went from single f- in this one section, 10 acres here- Yes. ... you went from single family to townhouses, back wanting now to go back to single family. Yes. Uh, uh, did I miss the reason why you're wanting to go back to single family from townhouses now? Well, we're also looking at o- this hasn't happened in the last three months. We've, I think 2003 is one, is the year that the, um, plan was up there for the reservation was up. So, over the years, this has changed. Um, right now, the, the neighbors that are out there as well would prefer to have single family. So, school came in, took 15 acres. We amended the plan. We showed a higher density. We got some of the units back. Now that we're ready to move forward again, those are not the units that the neighbors are wanting, the developer's wanting to build here now, so he's going with the single family. Townhouse proposal, was, you, you brought that forth, I'm sorry, I wasn't here then. Uh, you brought that forth after the school? Yes. Okay. So, you brought it forth after the school's- After they, after they took it, we had to amend the plan. Yeah. Okay. We originally had single family from the zone change. And the R3 zone lets us do the whole gambit, single family- Sure. ... duplexes. Sure. I'm just, yeah, I'm just looking at density, and to me right now, it looks like we're down zoning. So yeah, might as well be down zoning to R1. Although it had- But, uh, you know, I'm getting a little confused here. But you're still within the, the zoning category. You're not changing your zoning. Correct. All right, so within, like I said, when the zone change occurred there, you could have the maximum density buildout, whatever that is. Yes. So I, I don't see the down zoning part here. Um, medium density wants between five and 10 if you look at the, gotta think about this, five and 10 is for the, um, net acreage, four to eight for gross is your medium density. Yeah. And on that ... No, I was just gonna say, so I guess I don't have as big a issue with that. But if we would've had a concern about the density, that should've been brought up at the zone change at that, that point in time. So you, you've been granted an R3 zone, I, I guess- Yes. ... where you get to vary densities in there, so. Yeah, c- between here and, um, Masterson Station Park is the R1E and R1D zones. Um, and those will have different lot sizes associated with them as well. Did I detect that the school has a preference for single family versus townhouses- I don't- ... backing up to their lot? I don't think the school cares. So- It's the developer and what he wants to have- Okay. ... in the neighborhood. So the school's not asking for a certain kind of housing. No, they've never come forward and said what they want. Lynn? I just have a quick question about the green belt. Um, is there, what is the reason for that dedication of, of green space, its shape, its configuration? Um, well, the city would like to have it, generally. Uh, well, I mean, each, each developer's different. Some would prefer to have all these green, open, low areas, whatever, in backyards where people are maintaining and mowing them. Other developers are happy to get them to the city when the city's wanting this, this greenway. Um, we have, let's see, do you know where you're at orientation-wise for the big area of Greendale Road and there's several other developments we're not doing here? This road, um, comes through those. We've added access, pedestrian access here, it's gonna link this greenway across the Sandersville Road, next greenway, and then that all ties into Masterson Station Park. That was my question. Yeah, and it's, it's the low lands, so. 'Cause on this plot, it appears to be just a singular, isolated greenway, and I wondered if there was connectivity. Yeah. Mike? Um, Mr. Chairman, you ready for a motion? Yes. Um, I'd like to move approval of, uh, plan 2009-55P, Masterson Station on the, the revised staff recommendation. It looks like they... ... cleared up a lot of things that, that we saw in subdivision. A lot of those have been taken care of. So, uh, I'd like to move approval of this revised staff recommendation. There's a motion, a second that we approve plan number 2009-55P Masterson Station Unit 10 and Masterson Station Hills Unit 1. There's a motion, I second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed, by like sign. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda on page two, item C, is a preliminary subdivision plan, plan 2009-57 Taylor Place, also known as the Stinnet Property. This is property located out on Tates Creek Road near Crawley Lane, which was back in here, comes this way towards Tates Creek. Over here, we have Jessamine County where there's considerable development, commercial housing development, that sort of thing, down through, uh, along Tates Creek corridor. Uh, this area is zoned AB. It's one of the few areas that remains in the county where you can subdivide into 10-acre agricultural lots. But there was a preliminary development plan that was filed with the zone change, where it went from AR to AB. This, uh, is the preliminary subdivision plan that was required to be filed as, as part of that approval of the preliminary development plan. It shows the four lots that they're proposing. There's a total of 54 acres, uh, here, and they've roughly divided that up into equal, equal lots. Again, the frontage of these lots is on Tates Creek Road. But at the time of the zone change, staff had concerns about serving these buildable areas that you can see delineated here, with driveways and access out to Tates Creek Road. So a big part of that discussion centered on the, on a proper way to serve them. And this is a private access easement that was required at that time on that plan that you see here. And this is designed so that all these homes that are ultimately constructed here can utilize this private access easement to get out to Tates Creek Road. It also, they have provided a cul-de-sac in this area to allow for service vehicles and emergency vehicles to turn around. So, uh, again, that's the private access easement. There's an existing residence with a driveway here. Now, that will have to be removed at such time they pull a building permit to build in this buildable area. This preliminary subdivision plan is a late plan. You can see from looking at your agenda that the Subdivision Com- Committee recommended referral. There are a number of conditions, the last condition being review by a technical committee prior to certification. This, uh, particular plan, there was some concern expressed by the committee a- about the access easement as it's been provided on this property. You will find, in association with this filing, a handout. It's white, and it'll say, "More surveying." And it is the report, the 30% report, that is required by your subdivision regulations. Uh, there are no public improvements per se on this property. And again, the street that's being provided out there is not a public street nor is it a private street. It is a private access easement to serve these properties. Staff, uh, again, the Subdivision Committee has r- uh, recommended referral on this property. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. So any question- I have a question. Tom. Go ahead. Frank, go ahead. Tom. Yes, sir. Explain to me why that's not a private road, and if it's a private access easement, uh, do the four lots maintain it? Is that part of the, is that part of the d- I mean, how does that work? The theory- If you have four lots, you got a private access easement that serves all four of 'em, why wouldn't that be a private road? At this time, it's a private access easement that will have to be maintained by all the property owners, and there is a record plat that will specify those requirements. Uh, the, if this was, for instance, uh, uh, two lots, and they were establishing an easement, that's all that we would require, and it would be a minor plan. In this case, because of the four lots, and again, they have frontage on Tates Creek. Sure. But we wanted to avoid that, that complicated and potentially dangerous, uh... ... access. I understand. And so we just required that an access easement be created. And we feel that that will adequately address the needs of four, what in effect are agricultural lots. I- it may be semantics. I'm just trying in my head to figure out the difference between a private road and a private access easement. Mr. Bennett, if I- If I could address your question. Sure. The fact that it's an easement allows the lotting to go from rear to front and not be affected by the platting of a street that would bisect the properties. In this way, each of them can meet the minimum 10 acre requirement of the AB zone. That, that explains- It's significant. Thank you. ... was getting at was, the difference between what's an access easement versus a road, and I think you explained that. Uh, now the access easement, who has legal, does all four of the lot property owners have legal right to use that easement then? Yes, sir. It is to serve the property owners. It also exists to allow the provision of public services as necessary, emergency services, garbage pickup, those sorts of things. Who determines the pavement of the... Is it a, a, the width, thickness, those types of things? Engineering has, uh, to my understanding, reviewed the construction plans and a- and approved them on this- Okay. ... this road. Are there any questions for Tom and Mike? Um, Tom, I, I guess it's my day to be aggravating. Um, as far as the, the, you just mentioned the approval of the construction process, eh, of the road, can, can you explain, clarify the process as far as the road, the development plans and so forth? What, how, how everything occurred? How everything was done? We, uh, again this plan was filed as a preliminary development plan for the zone change. But, uh, it appropriately could have been a preliminary subdivision plan as well. So, that was required on this particular property. Uh, infrastructure, public infrastructure particularly, improvements come from the preliminary subdivision process. That is what they, where they are derived. An improvement plan would be filed after the approval of the preliminary subdivision plan. And then after they are built is when you would see your final record plats where those public improvements are then dedicated to the public. But we're in the situation where the road's already been built? It is my understanding that that road has been built, yes sir. Without it been... Can you explain how that happened? No, sir. I, I, I think engineering or, or would be appropriate, perhaps the applicant- Okay. ... could explain. Okay. Are there any other questions for Tom? Thank you. Thank you. Wait. Excuse me. Wait a minute, Tom. Uh, Tom, um, so the, the access easement is improved? It- It is improved? When you say improved, you mean constructed? Yes. Yes, ma'am. It's my understanding, yes. It's not just a dedicated easement on paper. It's actually a, a working- It's actually a physical road on the property. Now, it has not been created in the sense that the record plat- I understand that. ... is not been recorded, right. But it's, it will be a source of access. And will be traversed by heavy vehicles, and just make sure... Okay. Thank you, Tom. Applicant? My name is, uh, Rick Moore. I'm with Moore Surveying, and I don't know where the confusion came in at on the construction. We came in, we got our development plan, our zone change and all that. And, um, then we had the construction plans approved and there was a preliminary plat stuck in those construction plans, which I thought everything was going through. I wasn't the engineer on, on site, but my name's on everything, so... But we constructed, we had engineering out there while we was constructing this road. This road is constructed to all the standards of LFUCG. Everything's in place, everything. I come in to file a final plat because we're, we got some buyers for these lots. And then I was pointed out that the preliminary plat had not been filed. And when that happened, they gave me till 4:00 to bring them a preliminary plat, which I went back to the office, put everything together and brought them the preliminary plat back in under the late filing fee, so we could proceed on with this, since it was missed between both parties. But everything, everything is constructed, and once we get the preliminary approval and certification on it, then we get our final, the easement area will be on that final plat. But the road and everything is constructed and we're ready to move on with everything, with y'all's approval. Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Chairman, um, I've got a question and I, I don't believe at this point it's for the applicant. Um, and not to throw engineering or Hillard underneath the bus, but, um, C- Hillard, could you explain maybe how this process occurred? Um, we're, uh, we... And, and I'm very embarrassed about this and, and apologetic as well, but, uh... ... received construction plans for that access easement. We processed them, we reviewed them, and, um, and, uh, accepted those plans for construction. Uh, we did monitor, you know, the, like we would any other road construction with our proof roll and review of the pavement design and, uh, make sure that, um, they had their proper encroachment permits and things like that. But, um, we, we clearly, uh, were erroneous or erroneously accepted those plans be- because, because the preliminary subdivision plan had not been, um, had not been filed or approved or certified. Um, and that was clearly contrary to our what's, what's very well defined, um, policy within our, our group so... Um... So, so what, what has been done or can be done to make sure it doesn't happen again? Um, again, there's, it's, it's a well-documented policy in our group, but, uh, I'm, I'm working on that in- internally within personnel in my section here. So we're, uh, we're... We'll be, uh, modifying some procedures, I guess, to, to make sure that we don't let things like that fall through the cracks. Any other quest- I, I just have one quick question here. Is... Other than the procedural part of it, is the road constructed in a prov- in, in approval with Urban County government or to the standards? Yes. Yes. To the best of my knowledge it, uh, it looks good. It really looks good out there. Okay. Thank you. S- s- so le- le- let me take... I'm having problems here. So we do have a preliminary development plan now, but it was filed after the road was constructed. A preliminary development plan was filed in association with a, a zone change for the property. Uh, there, there had to be a zone change from, uh, I think it's from an AR zone to an AB zone to allow for- Right. ... the less than 40 acre- 10 acre. Right, the 10 acres. Right. ... size lots. Now, as, as a requirement on that preliminary subdivision plan, there's a note on there that says, um, that there would, shall be a, a preliminary- Development. ... subdivision plan. Subdivision. All right. Prior to, um, I guess, prior to construction plans or, or a final record plat, I guess. So, um, so that's, that's what fell through the cracks, was that preliminary subdivision plan step. And that should have been approved by the planning commission and certified prior to- Right. ... us reviewing or prior to... Actually, prior to them filing construction plans with us. But we certainly, uh, shouldn't have reviewed and approved them without that being done. I'm clear. Thank you. If I may, w- just one follow-up question, Hillard, um, following up to Mr. Day. Um, curbing, are there any curbing required for that street? Uh, no, sir. No. It's a rural section. Okay. It's an easement. Okay. All right. Thank you. W- just a comment, I guess, for us. It's not necessarily for anybody else. I... At the beginning of this, I had no idea there was any problems with it, and this clear, what seems to me to be a, a clear mistake in the procee- or the, in, in what took place had to be teased out, um, by those of you who know this process better than I . So I appreciate that. Um, I think that, however, given that we have a road that's built without approval from the, from the body that's supposed to approve such things, that that should have been front and center in the presentation to us. Um, such that, you know, there, there's a mistake that's been made. It's, it's, at this point, the procedures are being a- addressed, uh, et cetera, et cetera. But it shouldn't have had to be teased out. It should have been something that should have been front and center in the report. Thank you, Patrick. Any other questions of engineering? Ready for a motion? I'm ready for a motion. Um, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, um, move approval of Plan 2009-57B with the 20 notes, um, conditions that are noted on our agenda. Is there a second? Second. Any questions or comments from the commission? We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." I. Opposed by like sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, the next item on your agenda, on page three, item B, plan 2009-27F, Reserve at Walnut Grove Unit 1C, is a final record plat. This plan was originally filed with four record plats for the Reserve at Walnut Grove, is located out off Walnut Grove. There's a vicinity map. Greenbrier is nearby. Thomas Communications is this way, associated, uh, in this direction down Walnut Grove from this development. This particular unit is towards the back end of the development. You previously approved three record plats for this property. Staff had recommended postponement of this plan. Uh, subsequently, today you approved on a consent agenda a amended development plan, which addressed our concerns, staff's concerns, about this plan. That particular plan that you approved made an adjustment in the lotting as well as open space clarification. This plat is what reflects that. A lot was moved from this part of the development down into this area, and in fact it's Lot 17 that has been adjusted to help reflect the new open space numbers. The issue originally was, of course, their compliance with that open space, uh, figure. The plan, as you can see here, these are proposed walking trails. These are tree protection areas. This outlined in blue is the detention area. This blue line reflects just the height of the dam for that detention basin. That's, it's elevation, it's not the actual extent of the basin, unless the dam, the water was, was actually at the absolute top of the dam, which is a very rare occurrence. Again, this plat is now, from staff's perspective, approvable subject to the conditions on your agenda. You can see that, uh, item 10 where we said document compliance with minimal open space requirements, we believe that's been done, and, and what happened in the review of this property and the review of the final development plan, we discussed with them our concerns. How are we gonna do this? How are you gonna meet it? And there are several ways to do that. And during the course of the discussion, we discussed with them how you might do that and what would work, and there were several things put out during that discussion. And one of the things that we did is we discussed with them the dedication along Walnut Grove. Now, Walnut Grove is a rural scenic highway, it's designated as such in the expansion area plan. It carries a very low level of traffic. Um, they are not required to dedicate. They did. So we agreed with them that it was reasonable to count that as part of the open space. Uh, as a handout, we have provided to you a series of our, uh, articles in the zoning and the subregs that help explain how we arrived at that conclusion with the applicant. Of particularly, uh, of importance, I believe, is you'll see under rural road access requirements and scenic resource areas that Walnut Grove Lane is specifically mentioned. I mean, it was targeted in the expansion area plan. The desire is to maintain that rural look. Uh, other factors that, that come in, again, because it's a scenic resource, there's a 200-foot setback, their density is s- severely limited. This plan, uh, as the plan you approved, this is a record plat, the plan you approved had 53 units on it. That's all they can get on this property. Of course, as you can imagine, they want to very carefully protect that number of units. It's very expensive property. So that's how we worked with them to solve that problem. Uh, the right of way in and of itself accounted for about a half acre. The rest is adjusted by the change in Lot 17 that I mentioned, and that was able to bring them into compliance with their open space requirement on the property. All right. Question for Tom. Frank? Yeah, Tom, that red line, is that the 200-foot setback line? The red line? Mm-hmm. What I'm, I'm, I may be seeing that wrong. Show me where the 200-foot setback. Well, in this particular case you're at the back end of the property- Okay. ... so you don't see it. All right. That, this is the back end. The rest of the plats showed the rest of the property- Okay. ... and, uh, we do have the development plan which you approved on your consent agenda, if you think that you'd- No, no, just I'm trying to get an idea. Yeah, you're just in the back section. What is the red line? This orange line? No, behind. Yeah. This is a walking trail. The entire development has a walking trail through it. Okay. All right, thank you. Any other questions for Tom? Marie? Tom, is this the plan that we talked about where, uh, you used a certain regulation that is probably on this, and they gave land to the right of way- ... and then that they got to take open space credit for it. Is that that plan? It is- Yes, ma'am. ... the first time it had ever been used. It has- It came up in subdivision. Yes, ma'am. It had never been required before, uh, that that be done to help meet the open space requirement. Okay, so they dedicated land to Fayette, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. We have the use of the land. Yes, ma'am. About a half acre. They get credit for the open space and the homeowners mow it. Is that right? I believe- Homeowner's association takes care of it. In other words- I, I- ... we have no liability. ... would have to ask the applicant if it's their intent of the homeowners to maintain that. It is actually dedicated right of way. Okay. That's normally I believe dedicated right of way will be mowed by our, our people. Okay, well, but anyway, we had the use of it and it didn't cost us anything. No, ma'am. It was dedicated, yes. As did the Thompson, I mean, Thomas Communications property adjoining that, they also dedicated right of way. I personally hope they don't mow. We, we mow a little too much, I think. That's... And, uh, further questions for Tom? Thank you. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing the, uh, developer on here and one of the developers is Jim Ball, who's with Rory and me today. And, uh, we do agree with, um, Tom's presentation. I think, from what I hear, I'm hearing is that 10 and 11 have been satisfied so that can, they can be deleted. And as the discussion was, there was some... The, the red is the trail in there. Uh, this development's being designed so that it can tie in eventually to the rails to trails, which is gonna be further down, uh, Walnut Grove Lane. Knock on wood, hopefully at some point and the, um... Jim said that the homeowner's association would be cutting the grass along Walnut Grove Lane there. I guess, theoretically they could sit back and wait for the city to come do it once a year or something, but that would not add to the attractiveness of the, uh, development, so they will be cutting the grass there on that. So with those, we'd be happy- Mm-hmm. ... to answer any other questions and, but we ask your approval of this. I've got one, Mr. Murphy. Eh, eh, help me understand, how, how big are those building envelopes? Uh, how big a houses are gonna go on those 53 lots? Well, these are gonna be large houses and that's because we're only allowed to build three houses for every five acres out here and as Tom mentioned, uh, because of the large open space requirement, which is 80% here- Right. ... we can only use 20% for houses. So by definition sort of you have to put high-priced houses out here because you're paying a high price for this land and instead of- Oh, I'm sure. ... instead of five units per acre, you're doing, what is it? .6 units per acre, so that land cost has to get put into many smaller units and build big houses. So they're gonna be big houses. The footprint, Rory, is we've got, um, about 100 by 120 building- I, I just hadn't seen something that looked like it. I was trying to get it in my mind how big those building envelopes were. Any further questions for the applicant? I may make a point of clarification in response to Dick's comment. Uh, staff would agree that item number 11 on your agenda could be deleted, but we'd like to retain number 10 because we just, again, wanna be sure that that is documented on the plan that they have met that requirement. Want to eliminate 11? Uh, you can, you can delete 11. Yes, sir. Any other questions or comments or the, um, chair entertain a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move, uh, to approve plan 2009-27F with the, uh, deletion of, uh, note 11. All right, there's been a motion and a second- Second. ... to approve plan 2009-27F reserve at Walnut Grove Unit 1C. All in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by a like sign. Motion passed. Afternoon. Chris... Next item on your agenda is on page four. It's plan 2009-52F. This is the Highacre Shopping Center. This is a final record plat for property located at 1784, 1816, and 1820 Bryan Station Road. Now the subject property is located at the intersection of Bryan Station Road and Saint Anthony Drive. It's the location of a shopping center, as well as a service station at the corner. Um, the purpose of this plan is to revise the previously platted building lines, uh, down to the required setbacks of the zone. Previous plat for this property had a 50-foot building line all, and a 30-foot building line here all the way around, 50 feet all the way down the frontage of Bryan Station Road. ... Purpose of this plan is to revise that building line down to the 20-foot required of the B1 and gets rid of the building lines throughout the rest of the property. B1 currently has no side or rear setbacks, however, this property is governed by a development plan which was approved through the, this consent agenda. And the staff feels that at any point, any discussion on the, the closeness of those buildings, um, can be discussed in the development plan process as well as through the zone, the zone screening requirements that our ordinance has. Um, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval subject to the 10 conditions shown on your agenda and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions that you might have. Are there any questions for Chris? Thank you. Th-... Applicant? Mr. Chairman, I'm Roger Ladenburger. Commission members, uh, we're in agreement with the conditions and request approval. Sorry, ............................ did I miss you? I failed to mention the condition number nine is, uh, approval, subject to approval of a waiver, which I forgot to tell- And I've got- Mr. Martin- ... a waiver in my hands, so don't ask me why. Mr. Martin will cover that. I'm sorry, Tom. Just... 'cause I'm sitting here holding this thing. Quite all right. I was perfectly happy to let Roger, uh, make his presentation, but, uh, again, a- as Chris pointed out on your agenda, uh, there is a waiver request. Uh, this one, uh, it's interesting in and of its, its nature in that this, uh, waiver request and it... you have a report here in white, multiple pages because of the letter and, and documentation attached to it. Uh, what you're being asked to waive is the engineer's and land surveyor's certification that's in the regs and it's a requirement to go on every plan. In this situation, the purpose of this plat is just to amend building lines which is... you, you must do by plat. There are no public improvements planned whatsoever. There's no physical improvements. The site is completely built out. Uh, it's governed by a development plan as well, so, uh, the problem that Roger found himself in is that he's not an engineer, and so he cannot certify as to public improvements or to engineering design. He can, however, certify that the information on this plat is correct and that it does meet the zoning and subdivision regulations. And you will find in your report that we have recommended that, that, uh, you approve this waiver and under the approval item A, we have given you an, the certification as we believe it should read. Uh, we have reviewed that with the Division of Engineering and they concur. So again, uh, we would recommend approval of this waiver request. If you have any questions about that, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Is there any questions for Tom? Thank you. All right. Do we... are we approving the waiver and then... first or when we approve the plan, the Haaker plan, are we approving the waiver by doing that? I- how do you- I believe you should approve the waiver- Okay. ... in and of itself. Yes, sir. I entertain a motion we approve, uh, the waiver for Haaker Subdivision or Shopping Center. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the waiver on Plat 2009-DEP-F-52F as presented on the multiple white pages. All right. There's been a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Opposed, by a like sign. Okay, now we'll entertain a motion on the Plan 2009-52F Haaker Shopping Center. Mr. Chairman, I move plan, approval of Plan 2009-DEP-52F with the 10 conditions. All right. There's been a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Opposed by a like sign. Thank you. Thank you. We're gonna take about, um, a four or five minute break. Were you set up for that, uh, Chris? Okay, everybody ready to, uh, resume? Tom, you're on state. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page five. It is item G, Plan 2009-54F, Taylor Place, Stennett Property. It is the final record plat that was associated with the preliminary subdivision plan that you just saw a short time ago. This is the file. This plan was filed with the staff, and you can see on your agenda that we did recommend postponement because they had not filed the preliminary subdivision plan, nor had they filed the report, which you have now seen today and approved. Uh, again, it's the four acres. This one's 16, 14, 10, and, uh, the remnant, I don't see the, the acreage. And the question about the private access easement is here. This plan, again, was recommended for postponement. It didn't have a large number of conditions. Um, and normally, with your action on the preliminary plan that was just before you, we would be able to recommend approval of this plan. However, uh, it has just been brought to our attention today that, uh, the applicant does not have his affidavit and proof of having posted a sign on this property. And 6-4J6 of your subdivision regulations requires that subdivisions in the agricultural area be signed, be posted with the sign. And what they do is, when they do that, they then come in and they bring us an affidavit at the meeting and, and submit that. Uh, because of that, uh, it is necessary to postpone this plan, and two weeks would be appropriate. They'll need to sign that property immediately, but by doing so, it could be heard at your zoning meeting this month. All right. Is there any questions or comments? If not, I'll- Do you recommend a postponement, then? Yes, sir, we recommend a two-week postponement. You ready? Ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone Plan 2009... yeah, -54F for two weeks, for reasons, uh, provided at the presentation. All right, everybody understand the motion? We're gonna postpone Plan 2009-54F, Taylor Place, tenant property for two weeks. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed by like sign. Motion passed. All right. Chris? All right. Well, the next item on your agenda is on page eight. It's item JDP2009-40 Wolf Run Industrial Park Lot 5. Now, this is a final development plan for property located at 2308 Frankfurt Court. Uh, the property is located just off of Old Frankfurt Pike, outside of New Circle. The purpose of this plan is to designate an existing building in an I-1 zone as an office warehouse project, which allows for more office square footage than what is typically allowed for in the I-1. It allows for up to 75% office square footage and 25% for industrial. Article 21-08-210 requires that there be an approved final development plan in order to make use of those provisions, which is why this plan is before you. Now, there are no physical changes proposed to this site. ... the subdivision committee recommended postponement at it's last meeting, primarily due to the fact that the submitted plan did not document compliance w- with 8-21O. They had not told us what their mi- maximum square footage allowed, in addition to the total square footage for the property. Uh, this revised plan that you ha- that you're seeing before you, uh, has addressed many of the conditions tha- that's listed on your agenda. And, uh, the staff now recommends approval subject to the conditions shown in your pink sheet. I believe there are 10 remaining conditions. Uh, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them for you. Any questions for Chris? I'm sorry, and just to make sure it's front and center, um, one of the conditions, uh, that we have removed at the applicant's request, uh, is, um, review by technical committee. Uh, the applicant has been working on getting sign-offs from the sign-off folks you see listed up there. That's why you see Environmental Quality, um, marked off of, uh... We've received Division of Fire today. The applicant is working to try to get all of their sign-offs from the Tech Committee's folks up front and as soon as possible in order to get their tenant in there. Um, the staff was comfortable, given the fact that there was no change to the a- to the, to the site itself. It's simply a designation, uh, to allow them more office square footage. Uh, we were comfortable removing, uh, the review by technical committee, but I wanted to make sure that Commission was aware we were removing that from- Did you say earlier that we were removing, we were just gonna keep about 10? There is 10 remaining conditions, that's correct. Do you wanna go down through the list? I sure can. Well, I'm sorry. I didn't- Okay. I'm looking at the wrong sheet. My bad. Okay. But okay. Chris? I'm sorry. Re- the last condition resolve fence and encroachments? Yes. Where are we with that? Well, w- we, what we have is a fence right down through here, which is this way of the, the property line for the property. There's also a 30-foot reservation for a street extension here, as well as an encroachment from this lot onto this one. They're using some of this area of this owner, their pa- for their uses here. But we also have this 30-foot street extension reservation here to serve this property in the event it develops. I believe the Irving County Government owns that property. There's a lot of floodplain back in there and the way to serve that property is through this preservation for a street extension. The way to resolve that will likely be through a note on the plan stating that when the, uh, when that street extension's needed, the fencing and, and that conflict, you know, w- were removed. All right. Chris, what about the, uh, and this is just for my information, the, it says, "Discuss the areas of steep slope." Yeah, th- when the plan first came in, uh, there were no, um, elevations listed for any of the, uh, for the contour lines. So given that the pro- how tight those contour lines were, they very well could have been steep slope or they very well could have not have been. Uh, they've since labeled the contours, although we're not sure they're correct, but they are at one-foot contours. They're basing it off of, I, I believe, an incorrect, uh, uh, finished floor elevation. I don't think there's anywhere in Lexington that's as low as 105 feet, uh, as well as the 98-foot elevation for some of these contours. So we do need that corrected. That condition is still on your, uh, conditions for approval. However, we're comfortable that there's not steep slopes on the site. All right, any other questions that applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Mike Ladies. I represent the applicant. Uh, one of the owners is here today, as well as their engineer. Uh, we appreciate the, uh, staff's working with us over the last two weeks. This was a late-filed plan and we've worked diligently to, uh, clear up as many of the, uh, initial 24 conditions as possible. And we, uh, believe that we'll be able to clear up all the rest of 'em, uh, very shortly. So we agree with the remaining 10 conditions and request your, uh, approval. Thank you. All right, is there any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Commission? I- so we're r- the staff is recommending approval for plan number DP2009-40, Wolf Run Industrial Park, with the 10- Yes, with the 10 remaining conditions. ... conditions. All right, I entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, with, um, as the applicant mentioned, this was a late plan that we saw last week. And, uh, for, uh, for that reason, I think the recommendation was postponement, with the hope that, uh, they did exactly what they've been doing, uh, working very diligently to, to resolve the situations involved. So with that, um, I'd move for approvement of DP2009-40, with the 10 remaining conditions that's on the, uh, pink sheet. All right, there's been a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed by like sign. Motion passed. That's it. Is that all for what we have on that? Bonds and letters of credit. I was gonna say, we're ready to go. Uh, uh, take a motion for release of provo- performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chairman, I move the release and call of bonds as on our memorandum, white page. Second? All in favor, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. Opposed by like sign. Okay, there are comm- any commission items? No items requiring action, Mr. Chairman. All right, anybody have any, any other questions, comments they wanna say before we adjourn this meeting? All right. We have an audio conference on Wednesday the 24th, 4:00 to 5:30. It'd be good for, uh, one and a half hours of training credit for you all. And it's 2009 planning law review. So if you'd like to come, please let me know ab- probably by Tuesday afternoon, so that we can have everything ready for you. Okay. Thank you. Everybody get that? An hour and a half, that's pretty good lick. Uh, I'll, and I'll entertain a motion we adjourn. So moved. Second. Okay, thank you all. Good deal.