... 24th, 2009. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? Now, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of minutes from September 10, 2009 and September 24, 2009, as written. Second. Second. She gets ready. You're not up. We've got three or four here that were, were not up. Patrick, are you up? No. Yeah, I guess we do. Yeah, we can do that. All those in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, like sign. We'll work on getting you all up. You certainly don't want me to come down there to work on it. Guess we're ready for postponements and withdrawals. Ms. Wiseman, you won the race. I'm, he's pretty slow. He gave up. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'm Rena Wiseman, uh, of Stalking in Ogden. I have an item on page six of my agenda item IDP200981GCL Properties. Uh, I've spoken with, uh, the staff earlier today, and we would request a postponement of one week for that plan. That's 2009-81? Yes, sir. One week postponement. Yes. Mr. Sally, that'll be the, what? 19? 19th of November, yes, sir. Postponement til, uh, November the 19th. Yes, sir. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to speak to this m- to this motion? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Second. Motion been made and seconded to postpone this one week to November the 9th. Thank you. All in favor, I guess we can vote on it now. Are you all up now? Still not. All in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, like sign. We'll see you next week. Okay, thanks. Mr. Barrett. Members of the commission, I'm Tony Barrett, Barrett Partners, here on, uh, regarding, uh, age four, item B2, 2009-27, Ramsey Sullivan property. We ask for a one-month postponement. Mr. Sally, what's the date of that? Your meeting next month's December 10th. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak to this? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion to postpone 2009-27 one month to the December the 10th meeting. So moved. There you go. I've got it. E- Everybody up? There we go. All right, all those in favor, vote. Motion carries. We'll see you the 10th. Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, the staff does- Tom. ... have two items. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. The first item on page two, item A, plan 2009-74F, Harold R. Black property, we have received a written request from the applicant for an indefinite postponement. Anybody in the audience need to speak to this motion? 2009-74F, the Harold Black property, Combs Ferry Road. Uh, is it one month or two months? They have requested an indefinite postponement, Mr. Chairman. Deafinitive postponement, excuse me. All right, the Chair will entertain a motion then. Made. Thank you. Motion been made. Is there a second? Yeah. Okay. All right, all in favor, please vote. Indefinite postponement for plan 2009-74. Anything else, Mr. Martin? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. On page four of your agenda under development plans, item AdP2009-60 Miller Bird Commercial Park Subdivision, block A, unit one, plots one through six, we have received a written request to withdraw this plan. All right. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this withdrawal? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion to withdraw DP2009-60. Mr. Chairman. The Vice Chair wants you to speak up. Well, are you all getting what we're hearing? Are, are we okay? Nobody's made a motion yet. Well, we're waiting on you. I mean, every- all the rest of them have been electronic. You want it on the record? Yeah, please do. Um, move to withdraw, uh, DP2009-60. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. Let's vote. Yours working, Kerry? Mine isn't either. There we go. Motion withdrawn. The plan's withdrawn. Any other? No, sir. No others from the audience. Uh, I guess we're ready to go with the consent agenda. Mr. Salih? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. There are nine items on your meeting agenda that qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda. First two items are preliminary subdivision plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. First is on the very first page, item A, Plan 2009-106P, amended preliminary subdivision plan for the portion of the Mayhem property, located at 4127 Victoria Way. Next item is on the top of page two, item 1B, Plan 2009-118P. Second amended preliminary subdivision plan for the Bright East Townhomes, located at 3393 Sanibel Drive. There are two final subdivision plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. First is on page two, item 2B, Plan 2009-120F, amended final plat for Cove Lake Subdivision Unit 2, Block F, Lot 12. This is for property at 3344 and 3346 Cove Lake Drive. The next amended final record plat is on page three, item C, Plan 2009-121F, Charlotte Court, also known as The Arbors, Unit 2, Lot 90 Amended. This is for property at 537 Douglas Avenue. There is one final subdivision plat recommended for approval of a one-year extension by the staff. That item is on page three, item D of your meeting agenda. Plan 2008-158F, Bluegrass Business Park, also known as Pemberton Farm, Lots 3A and 3B, amended. This is for property located at 2570 Spur Road and 2201 Jaggie Fox Way. There are four remaining final development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. First appears on page five, item E of your meeting agenda, DP 2009-69, Amended Final Development Plan for the Richardson property, which is located at 150 and 300 Childsburg Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on your consent agenda, page five, item F. This is DP 2009-72, Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7, property at 310 Romney Road. On page five, item G of your meeting agenda, a consent agenda item DP 2009-73, an amended final development plan for Watts Farm, Unit 3B for property located at Reading Road and 3604 Walden Drive. Final item on your consent agenda appears on page six, item H of your meeting agenda. This is an amended final development plan for DP 2009-74, General Telephone Company of Kentucky Lot 2. This is property at 3695 Nicklesville Road. Mr. Chairman, all of these items can be considered for approval on your consent agenda at this time unless a member of the planning commission or the audience, uh, would request discussion of any of these nine items. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to pull one of these off the consent agenda and wants to speak to it? Is there anybody on the commission that wants to pull one off and speak to it? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. And remember, we're, we're withdrawing page four, item A, the Miller Byrd property. That's not on the consent agenda. We really need a motion t- to, to prove the consent agenda out loud. Move approval. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Second. Our two commissioners on the end are first and second. All right, let's all vote. Consent agenda is approved, Mr. Salih. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, we'll get prepared for our first presentation then. We've got to get it back in gear. It's been off too long. We've been gone too long. We're out of routine. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman. We're ready for you. Members of the commission. The next item on your agenda is on page two, DP 2009-71, Northgate subdivision, Unit 01, Lot 09. This is for property at 3300 Northgate Drive. ... is item C, Plan 2009-119P Cold Stream Research Campus, Unit Six. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. It is... It is located on the Cold Stream Research Campus, which is out here. We have Newtown Pike, Citation Boulevard intersection. On further to the north, you will find I-75, I-64. Here to the south, you'd be headed towards New Circle Road. And again, the Cold Stream Campus is on the west side of Newtown Pike. The subdivision plan that you see before you today is proposing a 29.28-acre subdivision here- Best Management Plan. ... on the southwestern end of the Cold Stream Research Campus. Again, off of Citation Boulevard, they are proposing an extension of Bully Road here and into this subdivision. This is Cane Run Creek. There is a FEMA floodplain, as you can see, associated with the property. This plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for approval subject to ten conditions, and you can see those conditions on your agenda, and they are standard conditions. There is one, however, which is number eight, which is provided that the Planning Commission grants a waiver to Article 6-8B of the Land Subdivision Regulations, and you should have that report in front of you. Unfortunately, they're all on the same color paper, so you'll have to... It is a white sheet. Mm-hmm. And we'll have, of course, the planned title. You've got two. Well... The... Anybody else need it? Okay. Thanks, Tom. Go ahead, Tom. We're- we're with you. Thank you, sir. The, the waiver request applies to the Bully Road extension, and as I'm sure the Planning Commission is aware, under the Subdivision Regulations, we require street continuity or a proper terminus of a street, which can be a cul-de-sac, and there are various designs that are available to developers on these cul-de-sacs. In this situation, this road runs, uh, over 1200 feet through here and terminates at their property line, which is well within the 100-year floodplain associated with the property. They are proposing a turnaround at this point, along with future access to these lots at the time that they are to be developed. There is a detail on the plan that you can see that shows how they propose for this to function. They are going to add signage as well to help motorists understand the access, the opportunity. This will be the only access into this property. Uh, the cross-section is somewhat larger than a local street. They've done that deliberately. They want to be sure that they can get good emergency vehicle access in and out if necessary. Uh, they're not gonna gate this or anything. This is gonna be a secondary turnaround within their campus, but it does allow them several advantages. One, presentation, uh, for people coming up, and also, it makes it very clear that you're entering into a campus development, and this will be Eastern State Hospital, is, the location is what is gonna be developed here. Staff has reviewed the waiver request. We consulted with solid waste, fire, traffic engineering, and, and they all concurred that the public safety would be protected by this design. Uh, staff was, in fact, pleased with the, uh, innovation and ingenuity that they put into the plan in terms of addressing the turnaround and the future access to the lots in the front of this property. So again, we are recommending approval of that waiver. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Phillips? Um, um, can you explain to me why, uh, as a state agency, um, Eastern State Hospital has to come to us for approval of a waiver? It is the Cold Stream development area, and they have brought plans to us consistently for approval. Uh, the campus itself and that development will be a facility review for you. So we're seeing this because the roadway bisects Cold Stream, and for that reason, we're having to consider adjusting our rules on their account? Yes, ma'am. It is their intent to dedicate the road as well to be a public street. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Mr. Martin, I've got one for you, if you don't mind. Oh, pardon. Uh, we, we all know this is on the Royal Springs Aquifer, and when they talk about best management practices, are they talking about run- stormwater runoff of the, of the, uh, parking lots, roofs? I mean, what are they talking about best management practices? Are they talking about just stormwater best management practices? Y- Yes, sir, that is my understanding. Now, their representative is here, and she can elaborate on that, but- Okay. I'll, I'll ask Ms. Total then. Thank you. And- My name is Sarah Tuttle with Strand Associates and also here is Joe Meyer with the Finance Cabinet. And, um, to answer your question, Mr. Penn, uh, best management practices are, um ... First of all, this project is required by, uh, the General Assembly to be Silver Certified under the LEED program. Okay. And there are a whole list of site constraints related to that. You can kinda pick and choose what works, but we will be doing, uh, innovative design management for the stormwater. We've got several things. We are in design des- design development, uh, right now on those issues and so I can't give you a shopping list of what we're gonna get, but we are required to be LEED Silver Certified, which is a- a- a which is a, um, pretty complete, uh, program for what we have to do. Um, the Coldstream Research Campus, um, traditionally has been under a Stormwater Master Plan that was approved by, um, this body and by the Urban- uh, County Government, well, since it was started. And, um, and we were one of the first projects that had to do, um- um, first flush management for stormwater rainoffs- runoffs. So, uh, this will be, um, a continuation of that long-term plan. Okay. A- as you're representing the petitioner, have you got anything you wanna add to what Mr. Martin said? Uh, no. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Uh, M- Ms. Phillips, eh- the reason we're here is because it- the plan is gonna be dedicated and- and it is gonna be owned by the Urban County Government, so we did feel like th- that was a requirement. We will be bringing the development plan back to you under, excuse me, the site plan back to you under the Public Facilities Review. Yeah. Okay. But because this is a public street and because this public street is not terminating in a standard cul-de-sac and so we did need the waiver. Any other que- Any other questions for Ms. Tuttle? Mr. Holmes? Yeah, I- I just have a question. So I guess under The Public Facilities Review, that's when you'll bring back your green space and bicycle plan and those types of things? That particular issue is related to, um, coming back. The green space is actually not on this property. It is the Coldstream Park. I think Tom didn't mention that, but the Coldstream Park actually goes through ... Um, it's kinda sorta what is in blue there and that is owned by the Ur- Urban County Government already. The Legacy Trail, as you know, goes along Citation. Eh, the reason that that, um, um, note is on there is because there's an issue about tying the future Legacy Trail, which is supposed to be in the creek, eh, or in adjacent to Cane Run. But the- the first phase has it up on Citation because of the crossing of Newtown Pike. So that's what that note is all about, to try to figure out how we're gonna do that. And in fact, there's some topographic issues that need to be studied. Any other questions for Ms. Tuttle? Guess not. Okay. We, um ... Is there anybody in the audience needs to co- want- that wants to comment on this? Mr. Martin, do you have anything else to add? Okay. Well, you've heard the presentation and you have the, uh, the waiver request. Uh, procedure-wise, I guess, w- do we need to ve- do we need to approve the plan and then the waiver? Or do we need both of them together? I believe you should approve them separate. All right, sir. Is there any discussion? I'll turn it over to the commission for discussion and/or emotion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2911- uh, 119-P. With the ten conditions? With the ten- Yes, but we have to do the waiver separately, right? Yes. So yes, we do. We do it separately. We need to do the waiver separately. All right, you've heard the motions. Is there a second? All right, so we'll say. Anything in your discussion on the motion? All those in favor of approving Plan 2009-111-P as presented with the ten conditions? Motion carries. Now Mr. Brew will take the waiver. I move for the appropriate waiver according to, uh, waiver of Article VI.VIII of the Land Subdivision Regulations per the recommendation of staff. Is there a second? Okay. Motion- motion been made and second. Any discussion on the waiver? If not, we'll vote on it. Waiver's approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page three. Item E, at the bottom of your page. Plan 2006-79F Cadentown, Eartha Kendrick property. This is a final record plat. It is located out in the Cadentown neighborhood, which is out off Liberty Road, and this is your new Liberty Road extension here. Here is old Todds Road, Man of War. You have seen several plans recently in this area. This is the apartment complex, you recently saw a zone change back on Campbell Lane for the addition of a building here. Uh, there was also a zone change for a commercial, uh, in this, uh, structure in this area that you recently had before you. This is a plan that came to you originally in 2006. Again, it's a subdivision plan to subdivide one tract here, located at the corner of what was then known as Liberty Road. This is now Cadentown Road. And this is Caden Lane. Again, you can see here, this is the subject property. It was unable to be certified at the time because they were waiting on a sewer project that was a public project, and that's why this plan actually came before you for reapproval on several occasions as well, and you recently did approve it because sewer is now available. We brought the plan back to you, uh, because of the condition that was placed, that they provide sidewalks along this frontage, along what was then Liberty Road. Now, that was done because at the time in 2006, the funding for the Liberty Road extension, the new construction was, was not certain, the timing was not certain, and staff felt it important to try to achieve some improvements in this area. And of course, as we all know, we now have the Liberty Road new extension completed through here. You have a waiver report in front of you, another one of these white ones like the others. The applicant, as I said, is requesting a waiver not to build approximately 270 feet of sidewalk along this frontage on what is now Cadentown Road, again, old Liberty Road. This pink shows you that there is an interior sidewalk system in this neighborhood. It was built by public funds, like the sewer. This was not built by any developer or builder through the subdivision process. And this area has an H-1 overlay, and you may recall when we evaluated this lot, before staff was comfortable with recommending approval to the planning commission, we wanted to be sure that this subdivision met the conditions of that H-1 overlay. And the intent of that H-1 overlay was to protect the rural character of this neighborhood, which was an old rural settlement. And you can see the lotting patterns, and that was a primary intent of that, was try to protect the large lots that were typical in this rural area. Well, another aspect of that rural area is that they're rural street sections. They're old rural roads. There are no public improvements on large parts of these roads. That's true for old Todds Road, no sidewalks. You got hit or miss down in here. There's no sidewalk at all through here, and staff is very, oh, skeptical, or we just not, we just don't believe based on what we hope to accomplish here that you're gonna see any further subdivisions in this area. Therefore, we are not gonna be able to achieve those public improvements through the standard subdivision process. It's much more likely in staff's estimation that you'll see additional public projects if and when funds become available to address those types of needs. Now, the good news from staff's perspective is Liberty Road's been constructed and it's a full urban section. It's got sidewalks. And these sidewalks lead off to Hamburg, to school, and- Yeah. ... if they wanna walk that far, up new Circle Road, they come this way to the new Todds Road area, to these commercial developments. So there is pedestrian access along, on this brand new facility through here. So staff, in your report, has recommended approval of this waiver. However, we're conditioning that with a proposal that a sidewalk section be built across right of way, this is right of way here, be built that will connect this existing interior system across to this now existing system along Liberty Road. We, in the recommendation we have recommended that that be built prior to the issuance of a building permit. The owner of this property is not a developer. He's not a builder, and we recognize that. But at such time as a builder does wish to come in here and put housing, again, on one of these new lots, we think that would be an appropriate time then to complete this little, approximately 40 feet of sidewalk, that again, will link this interior system with the new Liberty Road system. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? None? Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Uh, since hearing about this 40-foot little connection, I haven't had a chance to talk to Mrs. Kendricks, um, to find out what her feelings are on this. Um, during my waiver request, I pointed out that, you know, the state had a shot at it, the city had a shot at it. There was no improvements to be made. Um, I know it's only 40 feet, it kinda seems like it's just something they're trying to get for nothing now at the, at the end of this, uh, process. Um, and I, I would think that it could be approved without the 40 feet, but, uh, you know, really, it's up to you and go along with what you've got to say. We've been waiting a very long time to get this plan approved. Any, any questions for Mr. Kaley? The only question I would have for you, Mr. Kaley, is that, uh, it looks to me like that, uh, to have sidewalks within 40 feet of an existing sidewalk, that takes you onto your shopping areas and things like that. So is it your contention that the city oughta build that sidewalk instead of the developer? Is that your contention? Well, it seems like they've had it for years. It should've been figured in to the process if it... you know, it's 40 feet, they've done all the improvements to Liberty Road. Um, and talking to the state, you know, they repaved what is now Cadentown Road and the process of turning it over to the city, but neither the state nor the city had any improvement plans whatsoever. When we first agreed to the condition, um, to note Liberty Road improvements to include sidewalks, so when it came time to turn in the Mylar, I turned it in, I was thinking there were no improvements, so I couldn't do any sidewalks. Um, wasn't how it was interpreted, so we went through this waiver process and it's kind of, you know, whe- whether or not she needs or have her first home builder, if they need to go build 40 feet of sidewalk within the right of way between two public streets or not. It's her responsibility, or someone after her, or if it's, you know, should have been done with the city's work the first time. Any other que- Ms. Phillips? Um, Mr. Keeley, just to clarify for me, the 40-foot section of sidewalk would be completely off this parcel? It's a separate- Yes. It's on, it's on privately owned or publicly owned property? It's... But it's outside of your subdivision? That's correct. It is between what was Liberty Road and what is Liberty Road. Um, this is Mrs. Kendrick's property. The existing sidewalk within the neighborhood is on the other side of Caden Lane from her, and it's, uh, connection through there. Now that this road doesn't extend, I think there's like two houses up here. That it... and then- And who has, who has control over that wedge of property between Liberty Road and... the new Liberty Road and the old Liberty Road? I think the state. I can answer that, Ms. Phillips. Uh, the intent... This is state right of way. They are going to be giving Alexian Fayette Urban County Government this old right of way, so you're gonna have a section here that's going to be s- under city control and a section here that will be state. But it is right of way, it is public right of way, and it'll be a matter of permission from the two entities to build a sidewalk, which we don't believe- Does the- ... will be problematic. Does the... Does the state intend to, um, give that entire wedge of property, that entire triangular piece- I, I don't- ... um, to the urban county government? And how will it be split? I, I don't know. That's a good question. I do know that the old right of way here will go to us. Whether or not they'll want to surrender any additional right of way, uh, I'm not aware of how they're gonna actually do that. Um, just kinda depends on how much, you know, they wanna retain in terms of their responsibility and how much they'd be comfortable and the city would be comfortable with. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Holmes? MR. So are we... So you're asking the department of Right of way. Yes, sir. This is... This, this is public right of way. Yes, sir. Any other questions? Mr. Owens? Yeah. Mr. Martin, um, the cross street that's connecting Cadentown and Liberty Road now, where the T and Y is on Liberty Road. Right through here? Yes. Are there any sidewalks there? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. And no- nothing coming down Cadentown Lane either, I think you said? No- nothing here. No, sir. Okay. That's why this is the frontage where we had sought improvements. Okay. Okay, thank you. Ms. Phillips? Um, a lot of times, um, uh, sidewalk alignments, I know that it's kind of popular among designers, whatever, to wait to do sidewalks until very later on after development to see where a path occurs, where a path naturally takes place. Is there a path that exists from the corner of that subdivision over to the new Liberty Road right of way, or has it- Of the- ... is it so new that that may have not been established yet? There's a four-plank fence that runs all along the new Liberty Road. I don't... I don't see a break in it, and I got a picture of that area if you'd like to see it. Let's see. That stop sign is right here. I move to approve. So what they're talking about would be from the utility pole on the left going over to the utility pole on the right and through the fence to the sidewalk system. Our, our property is in the bottom left-hand corner- Mm-hmm. ... of this, coming back away from the intersection. Are you- So the sidewalk would be between the fence and the road there? Yes. Yeah, the, uh, can't read the sign. No exit or no through street, whatever that yellow sign is. I, I think the alignment would be from there, over through the plank fence onto the sidewalk system. Actually, it's just connection to the internal sidewalk, not the actual sidewalk. Yes. On the left side where you see this Caden Lane, uh, street sign is the internal sidewalk that was a, uh, w- what, city project? Mm-hmm. City project years ago. Switched roads out the route. Any other questions for Mr. Kaley? I want to give the audience a chance first before we have rebuttal, Mr. Martin. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this? If not, uh, Mr. Martin? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I would just like to make a couple of points, perhaps, of clarification. And that is, uh, as to doing an improvement on a right-of-way, you know, it's not unusual for us to require public right-of-way improvements, turn lanes and that sort of thing. Uh, the other thing I would like to point out that's important, this is a five-lot split. Uh, staff is aware of two houses, at least, that are in construction in this area. And we anticipate there will be more single family development in this area. So our concern about augmenting the existing system and tying them together is not just current, but it's also future pedestrian use in the area. Thank you. I, you know, Tom, I have a question. And, and you're right, I agree with all that, but at what point do you decide which one of those property owners should pay to build that sidewalk? We felt like the only way to equitably do it was just to tie it to a building permit. So in essence, the first person who comes in there would have to- Pay that. ... would have to do that. Unless of course, Ms. Kendrick chose to do that herself. There was, because she's not, again, in difference to the fact that she's not your typical developer. She's just a property owner who's, you know, we ... It, it is a, it's a tough choice, but we tried tell you, "Here you go. This is what we think will work." A- any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. If not, Mr. Kaley, you have anything else? Well, then the chair will turn it over to the commission for discussion, motion, whatever your pleasure. Mr. Cravens? Are you ready for a motion? Well, unless there's any discussion. Yeah. I guess I am. Okay. I, I move to approve, uh, are we re- I guess we're reapproving the whole plan with the waiver? Right. Except we're, are we gonna take the waiver separately? Yes, we can. Is that the best way to handle this? Yeah, let's, let's- Okay. ... take the waivers separately. I move approval of plan 2006-79F with the conditions, uh, that follows. Second. Second, Ms. Phillips. Any discussion on the motion? If not, let's vote. The motion passes. And we'll handle the- And I, and I'm gonna move approval of the waiver, uh, removing the request for the 40 feet of sidewalk. Okay. So your, your motion is to approve the waiver as written with the exception of not the sidewalk? Right. N- not to, uh, build the 40 feet sidewalk offsite. Uh- I think the, the waiver to include the sidewalk, including the 40 feet. Yeah. So you've already approved- No, because this is a waiver to that. This is a waiver, yeah. This is a waiver to number nine. I'll let, I'll let law rule on that. And I, I feel like that- There are lines that do include sidewalks, it just wouldn't have to be that 5%. Okay. Because we've already included it in there, so they can't just say they didn't do anything because they haven't done anything. So we need to have the other two that are 5% walkways. Are you doing that with the waiver or are you abandoning the motion? Looks like the waiver does that. No, I think you could do it e- I, I think you could do both, is to approve the waiver and to delete conditions nine and 10 from the proposed motion. Okay. As long as it's clear that you're approving them separately. Okay. So, Mr., Mr. Cravens, what are you doing then? Okay. Well, I'm still doing the same thing. All right. I'm trying to approve the waiver and, uh, without the 40 feet, and then I want to delete number nine, uh, on plan 2006-79F. All right. I feel like that extra 40 feet is a- ... is offside, way offside, and, uh, it looks like Liberty Road has a continuous fence all the way down through it, and I, I don't see the reason to cut a hole in that fence to, to put a 40... You know, a little sidewalk in it, so that's- Are you... You've, you've heard the motion to... The waiver request? Is there a second to that motion? Second. Second. All right. Motion been made and second. Any discussion? If not, are we clear on what we're doing, then? We're approving the motion, we're approve the, uh, the, the request for the waiver, but we're also disapproving the f- the recommendation for the 40-foot sidewalk. All in favor of Mike's motions, please vote. Motion passes. Okay. We wanna do, wanna do one more, then we'll take a break? No, we need a break for this. We just started. All right, we, we're getting, we're getting an hour and a half in. I know. I know. I'll get a hour and a half in there with you. Mr. Martin, I think we're ready for you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, page four of your agenda, at the bottom, item C is the next item to be heard. Development Plan 2009-65 Mayhan Property Apartments. This is an apartment complex located on the Mayhan property, which is off of Man O' War Boulevard. To the west is N- Nicholasville Road. To the east, Tates Creek. This sits closer to the Nicholasville Road area as you can see. Here we have the Bradford Colony. This is the Bradford Colony Street. Here is the main entrance into the development, Osborne Way, which becomes Moon Coin Way in this area. You, I'm sure, recall a lot of the discussion that we've had on these plans with the Victoria Way extension from the adjoining subdivision. The purpose of this development plan is, in essence, to bring the apartment complex, which is already approved and under construction to this point, across Victoria Way and into this area of the proposed development. The plan proposes 96 units in these four buildings. The plan was initially recommended for postponement by your subdivision committee and there was concern initially over the density and then there was concern about the relationship of this proposal to the single family homes. Uh, you may also recall, again, with the subdivision plan that you just approved on your consent agenda, there was a lot of discussion again about the street connections and the collector streets into this development, of which Victoria Way was one of those. Uh, Victoria Way extension is tied to the upper or northern part of this development, in that none of these buildings can be constructed through here until this is constructed. Staff has met with the applicant. They brought us a revised plan. Uh, we, uh, are comfortable with the efforts they've made and we are also comfortable, as we presented to the committee, that the density does meet the overall density on the area. In fact, it's well under the approved density for the area, so, a- again, though, uh, and we have handed out, on a white piece of paper, revised - One tree. ... revised conditions. Now, those are standard conditions with the exception of nine and 10. Again, number nine was the, uh, extent of the development next to the single family area and number 10 was the density increase, and those are related- But- ... again, as I explained, we were concerned about throwing this density in here in this development, particularly in this relationship. This is an existing neighborhood with single family and duplex homes, so they are going to... The developer controls this section and they're gonna screen this area of parking that they're showing here to protect the interest, uh, their own interest in selling these homes and, and having a proper relationship here. Staff was concerned about this relationship particularly. This revised plan shows- ... a 15-inch screen, uh, screening buffer, and tree protection area, and here there is also a 45-foot UE. Now, I don't know if you can see that very well, but the primary issue that we have, that you can see on your screen, is with this building and with the building envelope, and as you all know, we're getting more and more requests for envelopes so they can shift the buildings. And that's a re- a reaction and a reflection of site problems and that sort of thing, and it gives them a, a, a certain amount of flexibility. In this case, staff is concerned, again, about this relationship, and so we are recommending, in your revised conditions, that this part of the envelope basically go away, and that the rear of the building be where they're proposing it. Now, if they need to shift it a little bit to the side or to the front, we don't have a problem with that, but in, in, in deference to this existing neighborhood, we'd like to see it stay right where it's proposed so that we have a good, clean, wide buffer in that area. Uh, and with that, staff is recommending approval of the plan to you today. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Owens? Mr. Martin, um, you mentioned the fact that Victoria Way was gonna have to be built before the units on the upper side was built. Does that mean it's go- Victoria Way has to be built before the units on the bottom section- What will happen- ... is, is completed as well? That's a good... Victoria Way's gotta be built before either side is- It will have to be built. Currently, it's tied to this. However, no building permits can be issued for any of this area until another connection is built into the development, and that's either Victoria Way or, and we don't have it but it's here- Okay. ... an extension that comes through the property into here, and that, uh, there's gonna have to be a collector built and connected. Okay. But we've left them a bit of an option depending on which way the market goes. Uh, however, they have no access here except to Victoria Way, so Victoria Way's gonna have to be constructed before these. Ah, okay. J- just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Mr. Holmes, are you trying to get a question? All right, sir. Petitioner? I'm here. Uh, we, we don't have any problems with anything, uh- Uh, Mr., Mr. Cruz, would you state your name? Al Cruz. I'm sorry. Apologize. Uh, we, we're in agreement with all of the conditions, uh, except for number nine. Uh, we did have a lot of discussion relative to the building and screening, and, uh, even when we even talked about the building envelope, I don't remember if it was specifically this building or not. I don't really think it was, but, uh, I would like to have the note read, uh, that that be worked out with the staff, uh, instead of just to say that it's gonna be at the back of the building. I, this was given to me five minutes ago. I really haven't had a chance to digest it, and, uh, I'm concerned about where the utilities are gonna be, the sewers, the waterline, and those types of things, so we're, uh... The building, where it's currently located now, is our desired location. Uh, I have a problem with some of the other grading aspects, uh, or construction situations. I'd like to be able to adjust it some. Uh, the envelope, as it's drawn, is 55 feet, I believe, from the property line, so I would rather the note read, "resolve a building envelope" than just to, uh, ask me to adjust it today, uh, without giving it any real thought, if that's acceptable. Any questions for Mr. Cruz? Do you have a problem with that? Sorry. No, go ahead, Mr. Cruz. I, I don't recall us talking about that. We, we, uh, did discuss this and several other items, I, I believe, and particularly with the designer. However, uh, again, our concern is the relationship to the adjoining property, and that's what we wanna protect in terms of a buffer. Um, so that's the reason for number nine, and that was the position we thought it was best. We will, of course, abide by your decision. If, if you'd like for us to resolve it, we will attempt to re- to resolve it with the applicant, of course. Still got a question. Mr. Owens? Uh, yeah. Mr. Martin, uh, I don't know, maybe you just answered it. My first question was gonna be with what Mr. Cruz said as far as he had just seen this, like, five minutes ago. A- are you saying that it was discussed with designers or someone else besides Mr. Cruz earlier? We have discussed this, yes, sir. We, we- Okay. What, what are we concerned about on that lower corner there, as far as constraining the, the, uh, building envelope? The- Here? Yes. Well, o- our experience has been that when you have an envelope- Right. ... the building really moves around a whole lot. Right. And that isn't necessarily a problem in many cases, but here, we were just very concerned about this area. This is a tree protection area, utility easement, but there has to be a, a landscape buffer in here. But- So are you more concerned about the utility easement and, and, and- Well, they've got 45 feet. Yeah, well, I'm, I'm asking. And trees? Not as much what's behind it as far as the adjoining property? Our experience has been that trees- Okay. ... tend to be cut down quite often. Okay. And so, we're concerned again, about the proper, proper spacing in the buffer here. Uh, the original plan, this area was multi-family, and I think everyone was aware of that, and the neighbors were aware of that. This was townhouses and, and single family and that sort of thing. So again, with the increase in density, we just thought it appropriate to protect this as much as possible. And you can see- Okay. ... the attempts being made. Is the adjoining property built yet? Oh, yes, sir. Okay. Yes, it's a well-established neighborhood. It's, uh, single family or- Single family and duplex, both. Thank you. Any other questions? Tom, I'm sorry. Keep making you jump, jump up and down. What's the difference in, in the distance between the envelope now and the building as anticipated now to the property line? You got 15 feet of buffer already? All right, so how much difference are you talking about to restrict this? We're, uh- The existing building is 70 ... The building as we have it drawn on this plan is 70 feet from the property line. The envelope is 50 feet, so that gives me 15 feet of flexibility. Probably don't need that much, but I don't want zero. That's why I'm asking that it be something that we discuss with staff that you give them the flexibility to agree or disagree. But if we can't work it out, then I'll be back. Uh, that, that's all I'm asking. I just... I haven't had an opportunity to look at this, uh, in any detail, and I'm asking for that opportunity. Th- Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I, I guess ... So you just wanna, you wanna shrink the envelope down to where the building sits right now? The rear of the building that I can't ... I can move it forward, but I can't move it backwards. And, uh, my concern there is that, uh, in the past, we've tried to crowd those buildings up to the sidewalk. We have air conditioning pads and meter vaults, and the grade between the sidewalk or, or the parking lot and the building has to be handicap accessible and so on and so on and so on. And so- Well- ... we have it pretty much at our minimum now, which is 15 feet from the, uh, sidewalk on the parking lot. And, and Tom, that's not something you can live with? Pardon? Is that something the staff can't live with, the 10 or 15 feet there? I, I think we could live with some effort made to further protect the area. Again, we have an area there, but then we have a large easement, which is not going to have anything in it. It's just ... But we were concerned about appropriate distance and appropriate landscape buffers. Any other questions for, I guess, either one of them? We're both standing up there. No sense making a jump- We're still friends. We're still... Mr. Holmes, would you like to address one or the other of them, or both of them? Probably both. It sounds like, I mean, we're not, we're not talking about that big of a difference. We're not that far apart, but I'm a little uncomfortable trying to work it out here. So can we send that back and have it revolved? That's al- Or approve it? That's always an option. That's, you know, the, the- With the agreement that they work it out. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin is, do you have a recommendation for us on how we could do this? Well, I think very simply, it could be resolve the building envelope location relative to building A that is on the western boundary of the property. So we, we would change number nine to resolve instead of discuss? I would change it to resolve, yes, sir. If that's ... Mr. Cruz, that appropriate for you? That, that's exactly what I asked for. I do appreciate it. Any other discussion or questions for anybody? Anybody from the audience want to comment on this? Ms. Phillips? I, I was just gonna ask Tom and, um, Mr. Cruz if Tom is concerned about the tree protection area. I'm sure you all would be- We, we- ... amenable to setting some sort of, um, uh, barrier in place before you do any, any construction with heavy equipment. Yes, and, and that's why I asked for resolve. We, we did talk about this, uh, you know, at some length. Uh, I don't remember this specific request. Mainly, we talked about the preservation of the existing trees and us potentially adding some landscaping requirements. We thought that might be a little onerous to go that direction. We'll probably put some additional landscaping in there to, to protect this area. But again, I think it's something that we can work out. I don't believe we've really got a big issue here, but I, again, I just didn't wanna commit to that without having the opportunity to look at it a little bit more. Okay. Any further discussions, questions? Mr. Martin, on our staff, white paper on number nine, talks about adjust. Do we wanna put resolve in there? Do we wanna leave it on the development plan? How do we wanna do this? I, you would need to change the condition to state resolve. Remove adjust and replace it with resolve. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Chairman, for the record- All right. ... I did attend the meeting Mr. Martin was describing, and Mr. Cruz may not recall, but this was an issue discussed between staff, Mr. Kaley and Mr. Cruz. Okay. There were other issues in, as well, but it was discussed. All right, so you motion for record. Getting old. I, I won't, I won't comment on that. All right. Any other discussion? If not, I'll turn it over to the commission and for your pleasure and remon- we do have the white paper. Consult that, if you would. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a motion to approve DP2009-65 with the changes noted at item nine resolved. Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. All right. Motion by the seconded. As soon as we get it on the screen, we'll vote on it. Any discussion on the motion or want me to leave that out? All right. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Group. Thank you. Okay. Sorry about that. That's all right. Won't be the first time, but it won't be the last. I already know we have a preconceived notion. I really don't. I know you do. Yeah. See, about being on, about being on the committee. Chris, whenever you're ready. All right. Our next item on, is on page five of today's agenda. It is DP2009-68, Clark Property Unit 2. Uh, this is a preliminary subdivision plan and final development plan in the expansion area for property located at 1551 Deerhaven Lane. The property is, uh, located off of Polo Club Boulevard, coming down through, off of Man O' War, just outside of the interstate. The Polo Club, the last developed street currently is Icehouse Way. Property, subject property is the next one adjacent to the Greenway. This is Clark Property Unit 2. This is the Blackford property and a nor- northern Greenway coming down and clipping the corner. Blackford Parkway is up here, and on down, back again towards the interstate. Proposal is to build 148 single family residential lots on just over 30 gross acres. Now, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the plan, uh, subject to the 10 conditions shown on your agenda. Uh, condition number eight relates to tree protection area in this area of the plan on the eastern edge. This area is the greenway, does propose two local, or a local loop street, one median cut along Polo Club in this area, and then kind of a right out, right in only on this access, as well as one cul-de-sac towards the Blackford property to the north. Condition number 10 was a condition that arose out of the Subdivision Committee. Uh, in an initial discussion based on vehicular access on the property to the east, the future Clark Property development, uh, the Subdivision Committee, uh, recommended approval of th- of this plan, subject to number 10, uh, with a change to, uh, discussion of the pedestrian connections to this future development. Uh, Tom is going to go over the expansionary master plan compliance report as it relates to the trees and condition number eight, but I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Any... A- a- are you wanting to discuss number eight right now? Tom is gonna get to that, but if you have any questions related to the planning, I'll be happy to try to answer them now, or we can wait 'til Tom's, Tom's finished. Question. Miss Phillips. Um, how many lots are we talking about, and what's the average lot size? Average lot size is around 4600 square feet. They give a typical of 40 by 115, although the lots on this eastern boundary r- range from about 145 to over 200 square f- or 200 feet deep, uh, mainly due to the topographic change here, as well as the trees. Uh, they are attempting to utilize, you know, the trees and the tree stand, significant tree stand that runs along this direction, so these lots are atypical under our subdivision regulations. Um, but given the nature of the topographic, uh- ... slope out there. Uh, and using the tree protection area. We didn't have a problem with that. And how many lots in total? I'm sorry, 148. Any other questions for Chris? All right. All right. We'll let Tom... Yeah. Mr. Martin. Perhaps on top... Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, uh, being an expansionary plan that you see before you today, as always, there is an EAMP Compliance Report. Uh, you have that before you today on nice tan paper. Easier to f- to find in all that paper that you do have. The EAMP Compliance Report addresses the major infrastructure components that were recommended in the Expansion Area Master Plan and how they relate to any plan that you see before you today. And this plan that you do see before you addresses the future land use element, as Chris explained, with the lot sizes, as you can see through here, and they're typical size, very consistent with the EAMP, very consistent with this property and as it's developed, uh, in terms of lot size. So, it does comply with the density and the land use recommendation of the EAMP. The infrastructure element, again, that's your sewers and polo club and similar major infrastructure. In this case, there is no trunk line, which would be an infrastructure aspect of the EAMP. It's just local sewers. The Polo Club Boulevard is built, so they do comply with the infrastructure element of the Expansionary Master Plan. The community design element is also an aspect in this particular report, and that com- applies to this greenway you see here, and there's one that picks up the corner here, and that's right in here and here, and these are both recommended gen- greenways on your EAMP, and they're utilizing the greenway as well. In their layout you can see, they have a single-loaded street whi- which is- is rare, uh, but it does that. They're utilizing the greenway. They're allowing these people to front on the greenway with just the street here and then these folks back onto the greenway. So that's, we think, a good utilization of the greenway and it helps define the neighborhood. Uh, staff does have some concern with full compliance with the community element, and that relates to this area through here, and Chris alluded to that. Uh, there is, um, some steep topography here, and there is a significant tree stand. This is a topographic rendering of significant tree stands that was developed during the development of the EAMP, and that is your land capability analysis that is referenced in your ordinance. Uh, there is an aerial photo that we passed out to you that you can look at, and that's this. ??? Elmo please. Those are the, or that is, I should say, the aerial photograph that was used and the properties that we're talking about in this view are to the right center of your screen. If you look at that photograph, what you'll see is this little triangle. That's the easiest way to orient yourself. Here's a tree line here, the triangle, here is the property in question. This is a significant tree stand which is represented on this side of the property, perhaps also rendered here on this aspect of the plan. This, again, we highlighted the area on this boundary. Significant tree stand is here. Okay, there we go, right there. The applicant has proposed deeper lots in this area, um, in recognition of the tree stand and the topography in this area. Now, there are steep slopes. They are primarily on the adjoining property, but this area is also obviously heavily treed and there's a water course, uh, an intermittent stream that flows through this area. Our concern has been that they're proposing 20 feet of tree protection along the property line. They'll be 20 feet on the adjoining property at such time that that is brought before you. And here, in yellow, we highlighted, and here, this is perhaps a better for you to see, better contrast, here would be the pre- tree protection area, here would be the utility easement that is completely outside of the utility easement. This particular easement will have a sanitary sewer in it as it flows this way with the topography towards the trunk line, and it will also contain other electrical utilities and that sort of thing. There is, of course, a separation requirement between those of six feet. They're proposing a- a 20-foot easement. Staff is proposing a graduated tree protection area. And again, you have a handout, we're gonna put it up on Elmo. This is what it looks like, and what, what we've highlighted with this is a tree protection area that we believe would work well by graduating from 25 feet with s- totally separate utility, always maintained utility easement, to a maximum width of 35 feet in this area where the tree stand is, is wider. And that is our recommendation. Uh, you can see it perhaps I'll step back here again, this is the canopy that we've shown in, but the tree stand itself does not quite fully come out as wide as the canopy. Uh, and that, that being over time, things have changed and we have honeysuckle and that sort of thing, and staff is aware of that. Uh, we, again, I would emphasize here is the original significant tree stand as determined during the expansion area planning process. And you can see... The handout that we have there demonstrates the effect of a graduated area on the buildable area of each lot. And the pink that we highlight on your handout shows the, the difference that basically exists between staff and the applicant this time in, in a, in our proposal, and with theirs, which is an effect a static proposal of 20 feet tree protection and then utility. So with that, we have made that recommendation because we believe then that the plan will more fully comply with the intent of the expansion area. We have, again, as I've said, made that recommended change that's at the bottom of your report on the second ... on the back page. And if you have any questions about that report and compliance, I'll be happy to try to answer 'em. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I guess not. Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Murphy? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased here to be representing the, uh, developer and owner of the property. Um, need to make sure I put in my sign affidavit before I forget to do it, so. That affidavit was of course, to say that we had properly posted the property. Uh, I represent North 40 Properties LLC, which is the owner of the property. Now, North 40 Properties is a family owned company, the Clark Family, Marion Clark is here with me on the front row today. She is the managing member of the company, and her sister and other family members are the other members of this company. And I say that just to indicate that this property is being developed by the family that has owned this property for probably 150 years or so, um, been in the family, and they have, uh, done it very carefully and with a lot of attention to detail, and among other things, wanting to save trees. Uh, Ralph Rochelle is with us today as well. Ralph is the development manager for North 40 Properties. Al Gross is with us today as well, who's our designer from EA Partners. And, um, as I said, this has been in the Clark Family for 150 years, and, uh, out, out there I hope you've had a chance to see the Home Place subdivision, is what it's called out there, it's called Clark Property on the subdivision plats, uh, also part of Newmark- Newmarket Property, but we hope you've been able to see it. And as a, as an example of what they've done, the family built Polo Club Boulevard to make the connection, because that was needed out there. Now, they would have to eventually build that a- and, and do that anyway, but they didn't have to do it before they did development out there. They could've done it incrementally, uh, but they had to borrow the money to build that to make that connection, and they did that because they thought wa- that was the right thing to do. And what, uh, Marion and her family have done out here we think has been the right thing to do as well. We have a little disagreement. The only disagreement we have this, with the staff today is over the location of this tree protection area on the property, and we do want to discuss that with you a little bit. Um, there was a long discussion about this at the Subdivision Committee, if you all were there. I know Mr. Query, their urban forester, uh, had talked there and had been out in the property and looked at it, along with Rory Calley of EA Partners and Ralph Rochelle. And what we have proposed and offered is a 20-foot tree pro- preservation area along the, this eastern boundary line, which I think is shown along the entire boundary line here, and bearing in mind that we have to also, we've also getting the utility easement out of the tree protection area, which has not always been done on, on subdivisions, but we're making sure the utility easement is outside of the tree preservation area so that after this is platted the utilities don't come in and, and take down the trees anyway. The, uh, um, we, we acknowledge the existence of trees, and again, there, there's a stream going down through here. But what we disagree with is the extent of the coverage and how much should be preserved under the ordinance. The, at the subdivision committee, I think the testimony was that the, as Mr. Query mentioned, and he's here, he can verify that to you, and, and Rory, there was a old farm fence found about 20 feet off inside the property line as it's shown there. And that's, it, it sort of fenced off the creek. There's a ravine down there and it's fenced off the creek. This had been used for cattle farming in the past, and that the significant trees were located between the fence and the creek. Now, between the fence and what we're showing as the street there, there has been grown-up, uh, brushy-type vegetation over the years, and I'll show you a couple pictures in a minute here. But what happened is that this was a cattle farm and, uh, this was abandoned for use as a cattle farm probably, I was talking to Marion a few minutes ago, probably around early '80s, and it started growing up as farms do from the tree line into the field. So what we see as some of the outline of the tree preservation here and on the photograph that the staff was showing you, is more scrub-type, invasive species-type, uh, growth, and we don't think that should be part of our tree preservation area. We, I guess, we agree with tree preservation area. We want to pro- preserve what we know are the significant trees, but we just disagree with the extent of it. And Mr. Curry has been out in the site, uh, Rory has been out in the site, uh, Ralph Rochelle has been out in the site to vary this, to verify this. Just wanna ha- show you a couple of exhibits on the overhead here. First of all are from the, the, um, comprehensive plan and the ordinance. The first thing I'm putting up there is just out of, if you could pull that down a little bit, I'm just showing you that I'm taking the page out of the comprehensive plan. This is the expansion area master plan, which is part of the comprehensive plan, which shows what was to be in the EAR2 land use category, which is what we're located in. We're in the EAR2 zone. If you could flip it over, comprehensive plan calls for protection of mature woodlands and I put that in there because the word mature is in there in the comprehensive plan. Mature woodlands. And if you could go to the second sheet that we have there, I've taken a copy of section 23A2V out of the subdivision regulations, which is the ordinance which regards protection of woodlands, and again I've emphasized there that the, it does relate to mature woodlands, so the development of parcels of land which contain mature, mature woodlands, tree stands, and other significant individual trees, which are identified in the, those two plans, shall be designed and carried out. And this is expresses the intent of the ordinance, so as to protect and preserve all mature trees to the maximum extent practical, practicable. And again, the ma- word mature shows up there. And what we have in some of this area outside of the fence is some low scrub type use, which does not qualify as mature trees. I'm gonna give you a couple of exhibits here. Uh, Rory compiled, I think, uh, this is a page out of the US Forest Service where just, the first page is just showing you what we're, what we're, source we're taking this out of. It's the, uh, I think the US Forest Service manual on vegetation and this is section on non-native invasive plants of southern forests. A field guide for identification and control. If you go to the next page, we show two species out of that. The first one is winter creeper Unimus Fortunus, which is a, a vine which is identified as a invasive species. And the map on the bottom is a map of areas where this has been found and where eradication or other control needs to occur. The second page, if you go on the second one, is our old friends, the bush honeysuckle, which is endemic here, which again, they identify the area down in the bottom and this is the area of the country where it has been invaded- invasive in. It was originally from Asia and brought in and steps need to be tak- taken to control that. Now going to the next one is some pictures of our property here. This shows you what we're looking at. You can see what has grown out on the property from the fence line. You can see in the foreground of that picture we're sitting in what you can see was a field at one time, 20 or so years ago, and you can see the, the, the bush-type growth which has come up from the, the stream is way in the back and that, and this has come up from that, and you can see how when that is leafy, we took it just last week, but when it's leafy in the summer that can obviously appear as vegetative cover on aerial photographs. Uh, going to the next photograph here, we have, uh, this is our friend, bush honeysuckle, which is in part of this area shown here, which is an invasive species. We occasionally hear, there's an occasional volunteer young tree coming up in this area, but, uh, in most of this area, it's, uh, it's a plant that we would like to see remain undisturbed. Next one shows you, uh, another invasive plant, this is called Japanese maple weeping. It's a shrub type growth, which is very common in the area. Uh, and this is a photo taken just last week. Uh, the next one shows you an example of invasive plant, and this is called Japanese maples. Again, this is from our property. Uh, the next one is a photo taken just last week. Uh, and this is an example of invasive plant from our property. Uh, the next one is a photo taken just last week. Uh, and this is an example of invasive plant from our property. Uh, the next one is a photo taken just last week. Uh, and this is an example of invasive plant from our property. Uh, the next one is a photo taken just last week. Uh, and this is an example of invasive plant from our property. Uh, the next one is a photo taken just last week. Uh, and this is an example of invasive plant from our property. It's, uh, bush, honeysuckle, and that type of thing. And next photograph will show you, this is our picture of the winter creeper, which is that other invasive species which was shown in the manual just before. And the point I'm making here is that a lot of what was identified as tree protection area, we feel from observation, is bush- bushes coming out from what we feel is the true tree preservation area, which is that area inside, uh, uh, about 20 feet from the edge of the stream there, where there are trees which should be preserved and which we want to preserve. Um, we've also had a lot of ice storm damage. This property hasn't been, um, gone over since the various ice storms we've had as well, but what we're trying to do was to pre- identify and preserve the area in which the trees are really located. And from identification on the ground, we found it to be 20 feet from the stream and we've identified a 20-foot tree preservation area along the rear of this property. Um, we, uh, excuse me, here. Again, the, um, utility easement is going to be located outside of the tree preservation area, and we understand on some of our lots, we have them deep enough, uh, to accommodate, uh, what the staff is proposing, but our point is that what the staff is proposing and what they've labeled on here on their exhibit is, for instance, possible 100 feet of tree removal, and possible 160 feet of tree removal is not, in fact, going to be a case where we're doing 160 feet of tree removal to build a house. We feel on these lots, all of them, there's open space. All of them, there's some of this bushy space with the honeysuckle and other type species like that, and when we get to the back, there's that tree preservation, which we acknowledge and do want to preserve. Uh, in, in fairness to my client, I also need to point out that we... and 20 feet of a tree preservation area is more of a tree preservation area than many of our neighbors in this area have, have been required to do. Some of them is ten feet bordering us, some of them is zero feet on other peoples' property, uh, bordering us. On that aerial photograph you saw, um, on some other developer's property, the tree stand was shown on the aerial photograph, but is not on the development. That, that whole area has been subdivided off into lots and there's no tree stand there anymore. We're not proposing that. We want to prop- preserve this as a tree preservation area, but as I said, want to preserve the area which we feel is truly, uh, truly worth preserving. Uh, I think that's, uh, basically what, what I wanted to pass onto you. Alice here, and I think has some, few more comments on the tree preservation area or not, uh, as he, as he wishes to go, but, but again, we're not here to, um, say we don't want to preserve trees, because we do. And I know from other portions of this subdivision, Marion has directed, uh, her designers to design it in a way that other trees, which are not in tree preservations areas, are preserved. I go to almost every closing where North 40 Properties sell a lot to a builder and builders are charged more for lots where there are trees. It's not based on size of the lot or whatever. It's based on whether there's trees on the lots, and those add value to lots, and it's not just the value issue, it's because that's what the Clark family wants to do. They do want to preserve the trees that are there. And again, we, we have to make this, uh, objection sort of as a matter of principle, because we feel that the, what we're proposing agrees with what's on the ground and should be the tree preservation that is shown on this property. And we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Mr. Murphy, I've got one. You, you made the comment 20 foot from the tree protection area, and then you said 20 foot from the creek. Are you... Are you talking about from the property line? Are you talking about- From the property line. Our property line goes down into the creek and- It does go into the creek, then? It, it goes into that area. Some places it may go to the s- into the creek. Some places it may not quite make it there, but, so we're pro- pro- proposing it's 20 feet from our back property line. From your property line? To be safe on that. Yes. Mm-hmm. Which would be at least 20 feet from the center line of that creek. Mr. Cravens? Um, Mr. Murphy? Yes. About, um, how many trees will be planted back? I, I think there's 148 lots, so approximately 150 street trees? At least that. On every closing, we, uh, it... There's at least one tree per lot. I mean, once in a while, there's a lot with zero trees, but, uh, that's probably one out of 50 that has zero. Every other has one, and I've... we've gone up to three trees, three street trees on these. And the reason I know that is because at closing, we don't trust the builder... I hate to say this, to put the trees in. We collect money to... for the developer and the developer plants the trees themselves. Excuse me. Uh, no, if, if you were building there, we would trust you to put them in. But we want to make sure they're done, and done at, at, at one time, consistently. And so we plant the trees ourselves and collect money to do that. And so we will have... with 144 lots, we will have, I'm guessing, 160, 155, 157 street trees. And then, and then the builder, the builder would probably... You, you know the United States, there's more forestation in the United States- In 2011, there was in 1900. Mm-hmm. But anyway, the builder probably still is planting- It's not a subdivision. ... trees on every lot too , right? Yes. And what, what we were talking about was just street trees, it's not the other trees on the lot, which builders, builders plant, yes. So after a few years, oth- I mean, most of this will be covered with trees, l- much more than now? Oh, yes, it will. Yes, absolutely. And this, remember this was a fr- cattle field previously, and it will have a lot of trees on it when we're done. Mr. Owens? Thank you, I, I, yeah, I've got a question for Mr. Martin. Um, if he's still around. As far as, I guess, where you're starting from, if nothing else, with this drawing, uh, I presume you're starting at the property line, which would be down in the creek bottom or ravine bottom, not where the fence row is? We started, yes sir, at this property line that you see on the plan. Okay. Not, not necessarily where the fence is? They're talking about that's 20 feet off the creek? No, sir? Our, our, our point of reference was the property line- Okay. ... as presented on the plan by the applicant. And we started with a minimum of 25 feet and then created a graduated- Okay. ... tree protection area as we went to the, towards the Blackford property, again, maintaining that separate utility easement as well. Okay. All right. Th- that's fine with me. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy or Mr. Martin? Anybody in the audience wanna comment on this? Uh, commission, any other questions? I've got one question. I probably oughta ask it to, to Mr. Murphy. Uh, uh, Mr. Murphy, I, I don't have a lot of problem with s- with your presentation other than the fact that the history of this has been is that we tear down mature trees and plant back immature trees, and you got to get to be my age before those trees ever get big enough to do 'em any good. So my concern is that we keep the mature trees like yours is, but we don't take 'em down just for the benefit of the lot and say, "We're gonna plant 'em back because it's more convenient for us to do it that way." And that's been the history of what we fought with for a long time here. I'm not saying that's what you're gonna do. What I'm saying to you is, is that to lose mature trees and to use the fact that we're gonna plant at least one tree per lot, unless you're a pretty young person when you buy that lot, the guy that buys the house the second time is gonna benefit a lot more than the guy that buys the house the first time. And so I, my concern, just as a, as a commission member, is that I'm not concerned about this honeysuckle. Uh, that's kind of like kudzu, you know, it's gonna come back unless you keep it mowed. But my concern is the mature trees and that... I'm saying all this to get to a question. The question is, is there any lots down through there that the staff's request would impa- would it impact your all's ability to be able to develop the lot? If that makes any sense to you. Yes. Uh, we feel, uh, as you can see, these are of varying widths. It, it would negatively impact us because it would basically only allow, uh, the lot lo- the, the building footprint to be located in one particular location. It also impacts people building decks and that sort of thing as well. So we need to have a little freedom f- for the placement of that house on the lot. And we're doing this, again, that we're agreeing with the densities as shown on the expansion area plan. This, we i- these are the densities that are called for, these are narrow lots, these are 40-foot lots, which is in agreement with the expansion area plan. So we don't have a lot of flexibility on siting those housing pads, and we need to have a little bit forward and aft on doing that for variation in houses, for decks and building ranch houses and, and that sort of thing. And again, I guess the other thing I'd mention, we weren't saying, I wasn't using street trees as a justification to take down mature trees. We're not coming here to ask you to take 'em down. We're, we're here because we feel the mature trees are where we are preserving them, in the tree preservation area, and that we will not be taking down mature trees in the outside of what we're proposing to you. My response about street trees came in response to a question. I understand. And our point is, we will have many more trees on this property after development probably than is, is now. But, but we're not... I'm not saying, "Hey, let us tear down mature trees and plant new ones." We're s- uh, we're saying, "Let us keep the trees where we know they are based on site investigation, keep those mature trees." Yes, we wanna keep 'em. We don't wanna be obligated to keeping the stuff that's in the creep out area, which is in a lot of that area we feel the staff is asking us to do, the creep out area of the honeysuckle and the, that kind of thing, which has grown up in the last 20 years because this field has not been grazed and not mowed during that time. But there wouldn't be any mature trees in that creep out area? In the creek area, there will be. Creep out area, you're telling me. Oh, the creep out area. No, we don't feel that, no, that we felt that, that is new, new growth there, up there All right. All right, sir. Any other questions for, for Mr. Martin or for, well, not Mr. Martin, for Mr. Murphy? Mr. Craven. Yes, um, yeah, an- and I'm- I'm seeing this- this extra easement you're doing for your utilities outside the tree protection. That's a little unusual, I believe. I haven't seen that too many times. Yes, it is. It is. It's- it's outside of it. And in other cases, for other developments, I think that utility easement has been inside- About 45 feet. Yeah, we're- we're losing, if you will, losing on the rear, not only the tree protection area, but an additional 20 feet or so for an easement. And that easement has to be wide enough to accommodate both sanitary sewer and other utilities. And there has to be a separation between those. So we have to make this utility easement wider than is usual as well on that. I think what I reported to you on the area of it was what was verified by Mr. Query at the subdivision committee. He's been on site. Mr. Owens. Yes, thank you. Uh, Mr. Murphy, let me ask you this first. Uh, you know, the, with discussion of the trees, tree protection area, you know, it seems like there's a varying opinion as to where it is. Where is the problem with just simply going out and working with a urban forester on this, and, you know, marking the actual tree protection area? Well, I think he's already been out there and- and verified that what we're requesting is an appropriate tree protection area. And you may wanna verify with him here. Is he still here? Yeah. He- he's been through this whole thing. Oh, there he is. What is shown on the development plan is incorrect. Um, the tree canopy was developed based upon the information from aerial photographs. And I'll have to agree with Mr. Murphy. The tree protection area is- is being shown, that's being shown, uh, in this, in this area here. It's really nothing but volunteer trees, uh, immature trees, uh, bush honeysuckle. There's an old agricultural fence that's about 20 feet off of the creek, which is also gonna be the back of the property lines. That agricultural fence that we discovered in the field, uh, that area was fenced off to prevent cattle or their livestock from getting into that environmentally sensitive area. That is the area where the mature trees are located. Even in, even talking with the developer and their engineer in the field, they still feel that they can install their utilities in that area where it's early successional forest or trees, uh, without having to remove all of them. And also the depth of the lots, of the lots themself, uh, is a good design because the houses are gonna be far removed from that backyard area, uh, where the utilities are gonna have to be installed. So- so I think to answer your question, what is being shown on the plan is not really indicative of where the mature trees are actually in the field. That's 20 feet from the, where the property line. Are you saying the- the fence is 20 feet and that's pretty much encompasses the tree protection? The- the- the old agricultural fence that's within that tree canopy, and I- I think we've got pictures in the file that shows the, where the mature trees are located. And those are within that area of where that old farm fence is still existing. Everything that- that is outside of that fence, which is what he was calling the creep area, uh- That's what it is. ... is where the bush honeysuckle- Description. ... and the smaller volunteer trees that have grown up since the late '80s when the area was abandoned. As- as the, as you go deep into the property, it seems like the tree canopy area increases. Have you been back there? Does it, does the actual tree stand, you know, come outside the fenced area? A- again, th- what they're showing as far as the tree protection area, they're having to use that information based upon what was presented with the comp plan. Uh- Are you talking about the area that they've got outlined or the... Yeah, right. It goes all the way out. That- that seems, yeah, that seems a little bit much. That- that covers the whole lot, you know. Which in fact, the most mature trees are only within- Correct. ... the ravine. Okay. They're gonna be inside the fence. This area here is mostly green row and bush honey. Yeah, I, yeah, I don't think anybody's talking about protecting that. Uh, I'm just wondering about the shaded, shaded green area that's right next to the property line. Yeah. This- this area here- Yeah. ... uh, they're- they're calling it tree protection area. And even within this shaded area here, they're still gonna be far outside of where the most mature trees are. I think if we had a picture, do we have a picture in the file? That would be the best way to describe, um, if I think they've got a photograph of that area. Uh, yeah. Uh, um, I'm okay with what he's saying. If he's saying that's, that's where it is. Yeah. That's where it is. Mr. Query, I'm, you know, I'm okay with what you're saying. I- I just want to make sure everybody's correct and, and, and looking at the same thing. Right. So, okay. Mr. Holmes. I was hoping, uh, we would have a photograph 'cause it's, it's somewhat difficult to explain when we're looking at it on paper here. And, um, where the mature trees are located is around that creek, and it has been protected from past farming practices. And now... Mr. Query, would you say on the deepest part that tree stand would be 35 feet from the, uh, from the boundary? Again, the, the property line is hard to show exactly where the property line is because the property line is basically the creek channel. Mm-hmm. In some areas, the tree protection area may only need to be 10 feet. On other areas, it could be possibly up to 30. Mm-hmm. But everything, yet again, that's within that old agricultural fence that's currently there today is what needs to be protected. And from our conversation- Okay. ... in the field, that's what they're wanting to- Okay. ... preserve. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Holmes? Yeah, I guess I'm trying to get some clarification here. When we talk about increasing the minimum from 25 to 35 feet, ha-have we taken the urban forester's recommendations into consideration when we're making that, or di- did you make that recommendation, increasing 25 to 35, or where'd that come from? You're saying not to... Again, I'm comfortable with the recommendation of 20 feet because that is where the mature trees are located. What is being shown on this plan, in my opinion, is not accurate to what is actually in the field, because this outline of the tree canopy is mostly bush honeysuckle and secondary vegetation. I, I guess that's why I see, when I see 25 to 35, and I see note number s- five, urban forester's approval of a tree preservation plan, there seems to be a conflict. Uh, I, I, I'm assuming we take your recommendation on, on this, since that's what note five says. But number eight talks about denote. Right. Just to clarify, if I can clarify, we have no, no problem at all with, with note five, which is urban forester's approval of tree preservlation plan. We had the objection to note eight 'cause we denoted it as 20 feet, and we were saying that we thought that was sufficient. But w-whatever we have to have Mr. Query's approval under five. I guess that's what I'm saying is, Mr. Query, being the urban forester, would probably advise us as to what would be appropriate. And I think he is. Okay. You have, you have something else, Mr. Query? I feel comfortable through the sign-off process that I will be able to authorize, through my, my sign-off on this plan, that, that the tree protection area is gonna be accurate. It may change in the next version. If this is a preliminary, um, subdivision plan, then we may ask them to revise, uh, where that is actually located on the plan, so when the plan's recorded it's not showing the tree canopy coming all the way out into the half of the back lots. All right. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Murphy, you have any rebuttal? No. I think we just request that the, uh, eight, uh, be changed either to denote 20-foot tree protection area, or I think that's what we'd request, to note 20-foot tree protection area, with the understanding that we still have to meet five as well, which is the urban forester's sign-off on that. But we just, uh, our point was we didn't want to be required by a note to show a tree protection area more than what is actually there and more than required by Mr. Query. All right, sir. Mr. Martin? I think there's just a couple of points of clarification that I'd like to make. And, uh, first of all, I would like to draw your attention to- Sell that. ... condition 10. Uh, Mr. Taylor touched on that in his presentation, and I'd like to clarify that for the planning commission. This discussion on the pedestrian connection of future development arose out of an initial concern about the possibility of full vehicular connection to the adjoining property. But that wasn't included here. And that was deemed by the committee to be unnecessary and inhibited as well by the topographic feature. It was, at that time, discussed and recommended, and the applicant, uh, was agreeable to, as we understood it, to provide a pedestrian connection through this area to the adjoining property. So, uh, I wanted to clarify that, that for you and state that that condition could stay resolved so that actual design and ultimate connection could be worked out we- by the applicant. Uh, the other thing I would like to touch on, to explain the staff's recommendation on the graduated tree protection area, is, again, Mr. Murphy did touch on 23A-2B, protection of woodlands. Indeed, it does talk about mature trees. Uh, it also goes on to say that the design of the development has maximized the preservation of tree stands and significant, uh, individual trees. So... The purpose of our proposal, planning staff, was not just the individual trees sprinkled throughout an area, but it was the tree stand, the woodlands of which they were a part. And that was our concern and we believe again, that the EAMP speaks for itself with the map that we showed you of a significant tree stand that was developed directly from a 1996 aerial photograph and that's what our proposal followed and attempted to do. So, I just wanted to clarify that for you. That's not based so much, uh, on the canopy that the applicant has shown you on the plan, uh, as i- it is the actual EAMP plan that we used as a reference point to determine where we thought the, uh, additional protection was necessary. Mr. Brewer. Yeah, I, I applaud you Tom for, for the innovative way you tried to address that, but it was based on, you know, aerial photography and we have the, the expert who's been out there who says he's comfortable with 20 feet. I'm comfortable with 20 feet, I say we move on. Well, a- we won't let Mr. Martin finish his rebuttal. A- and that was it, that was it. That's fine, I appreciate that. Uh, but that was, I just wanted to clarify that for the- All right. ... commission. Fine, thank you. Then we'll, uh, turn it over to the commission and, uh, for discussion and/or motion. And then let me ask, uh, law, do we need to, to, uh, say that we've accepted the EAM report or does that need to be a separate motion? Mr. Martin or Mr.- I, I, if you want to not, uh, require the 25 to 35 foot graduated, um, protection area, then you'd wanna delete that condition A that we placed on the report. I can't find condition A. . I'm trying to get them to find out what to do with this. If, if there's any discussion on this, we can start on with that, w- but I do need to know what we need to do with the EAMP report. And Mr. Martin has talked about if we would decide that w- I know how to handle A, I just don't know how to handle the whole report. Under the procedures, the Planning Commission does need to make a finding that the development plan is in compliance. Okay, thank you, that's what we'll do. Then, uh, we'll, w- we'll note that we'll change number 10 to resolve and then we'll have discussion on how we wanna handle number eight and we will, we will, uh, identify this EAMP re- report. So I'm open for any discussion and/or motion. Mr. Chairman, uh, couldn't we just delete number eight since number five, uh, the urban forester approval of the tree preservation plan would cover that? Except it doesn't say 20 feet. They're w- they're willing to give us 20 feet. Oh. Okay. And that, that would be my response to that is that- Well, then- ... we need to get to 20 feet. ... if we didn't wanna do that, could we, couldn't we just say to note proposed tree protection area of 20 feet? Yes. Yes, we can do that. Do that. Okay. You ready for motion? He's got his name up there. Mr. Owens? Yes, thank you. Um, I'll move for approval of, uh, DP2009-68, the Clark Property Unit Two, uh, ch- uh, change in number eight to read to note, uh, the proposed tree protection area of 20 feet, change number 10 to resolve pedestrian connections, uh, for future development and recognizing that, uh, this is in compliance with the A- EAMP Compliance Report, deleting part A on the back of page two. Second. Heard a motion, you have a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, as soon as it comes up, we'll vote. Motion carries. Thank you. We'll take five before we start back with our other agendas. ... no. Committee will come back to order. I don't find I don't, I don't, I don't like writing. Okay. Shh. Who wants the next one? I'll pass it on. I got you. Sure. Okay. Mr. Martin, we're ready whenever you are. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda begins at the bottom of page six. It is a land subdivision regulation amendment. It is a proposed change to SIR... SRA 2009-2, which is to amend article 6-5A to require underground utilities. This is a discussion that you continued from your previous hearing to today's hearing. You continued your discussion at a request to try to obtain more information on how this recommendation for amendment was developed by the council and city staff and utility staff that were involved in those negotiations. As I reported to you last time, planning was not involved in those discussions. Uh, I did hand out to you some emails that shows just a history of how we, we contacted some of the folks and, and, th- there's scheduling conflicts is what's happened with several of the people that were involved in this negotiation. Uh, we can tell you that, uh, as we reported before, Ed Gardner with the law department was the primary drafter of this amendment. It came about, again, as we explained, through discussions with council members, their, uh, Ed Gardner, and, uh, Mr. Freebird of KU. And it was that discussion, eh, that brought to you the... th- th- the proposed amendment, and I handed out the report again to make sure you had it. Uh, in, in case you forgot to bring it with you from the last hearing, I thought I'd hand out a new copy and you have it. And again, that is the staff's review of the report, uh, pardon me, of the recommended amendment to place these utilities underground in a subdivision. Uh, staff, as we stated before, is recommending approval of this. Uh, we cannot at this time, however, offer you any additional information as to the total evolution- ... uh, of the-- of the amendment through the process that took place, uh, prior to this being presented to staff, uh, and to you. So Mr. Martin, just to be clear, this-- this was sent to us from the council, and it's, uh, and you're asking us to adopt this to, uh, in-- in their request and make it part of our ordinance? Yes, sir. They're-- they're asking you to make it part of the subdivision regulations. And again, in the email you have a statement that was presented to you, but it, uh, and again, it's what's explained in the report, it was out of great concern for the impact of the ice storms and severe weather and the cost involved and the safety implications, uh, of that. Uh, a-and again, i-it says, as we, uh, I think said in our presentation before, a lot of your new subdivisions particularly are doing this anyway. Mr. Cravens? Um, I-I'd still like to have a little more, um, something on this that we can go by. Uh, I see a distribution feeder circuit of 200 amps or greater. Uh, it doesn't have to be underground. Some houses have a 400 amp service, you know, especially if they have two-- two air conditioning units. And, uh, so would that mean those wouldn't be, have to be underground? That's not our interpretation. I-- of this, oh, uh, staff believes the intent here is to place all service lines, lateral lines, uh, in the ground, and also service lines within a subdivision. O-okay. And then, and you said within a subdivision, a subdivision could be a lot split in-in your opinion? Yes, sir. It is under our ordinance. And so, um, you know, a-and I think you explained in one of the other meetings that the remedy was a waiver, uh, to, y-you know, if you had a hardship or something like that pass by the staff and then the commission. Yes, sir. Staff, uh, touches on that, uh, point in our report. Well, I-I would like to see this modified some. I would like to see, um, maybe t-two point one acres or less of a subdivision, um, not included in this. And I would like to see, uh, existing overhead lines, especially where they're, you know, where you're going back and infield and trying to redevelop, uh, existing overhead lines 'cause since we can't get an answer on this 200 amp, what size lines that means, I would like to see that, um, entered into this. The market- the market actually will pay for underground utilities. I mean we, y-you know, that's, they-- they demand it. In fact, underground is more, uh, common than overhead in-in new subdivisions. It's just, it's just automatically done. And over, only time you do overhead is when you go back in a existing area and you try to fill in some of these parcels and the overhead lines are there. I mean, I could see a problem there. If-if those weren't 200 amps, you might have to bring those down and all the lines attached to 'em, to the other houses down. I-I don't see how that could work. Yes, yes sir. Your point's well taken with staff. As we said in our report, we- we anticipate that you will see waiver requests on smaller subdivisions and on specific circumstances. I think, Mr. Freebird, d-did you want to comment, Mr. Freebird? I'm happy to. I'm David Freebird with Kentucky Utilities. Um, and I, some things I am not prepared to comment on, but in terms of the feeder circuits of greater than 200 amp or- or- or 200 amps and below, those would cover virtually all, in my opinion, all of our residential customers, all houses of various size, sizes. Above that you get into, uh, commercial and industrial applications. And this, the discussions that we were happy to participate in with, uh, the council and the legal staff were- were focused on subdivisions and residential utilities. Uh, and that's, that threshold would catch all of those customers of ours. So like just what, I mean, what kind of line would be 200 amps or more in the back of a house? Uh, feeder lines, the large lines that bring the power into an area before it is then distributed on the smaller radial lines. A-are there cases where you might have a feeder line that's not that size? Say it only went to one or two houses? Uh, I-I'm trying to picture a situation. I'm not sure. I can't think of one. And it also says in here that this is being done because of the ice storm. And I mean, don't you have maintenance on underground lines too? Absolutely. And-and one of the-the key factors is always when you talk about overhead versus underground is-is aesthetics. And-and there is a, and that's why I believe that the developers have been doing it for years, that- that this change in the, in the ordinance would codify and further incent what's pretty much happening anyway. And-and that folks that are developing new areas prefer to have the underground utilities, and this would further that. Um, but there, we, there are maintenance costs of overhead lines and underground lines as well. They are interrupted less frequently by weather or other things. They're still dug into by people doing yard work or people doing projects and equipment fails. So there, there are maintenance costs associated with underground facilities as well. Mr. Holmes? I was just gonna, I know we've discussed this several times and we talked about the issue of, uh, I think affordability and, uh, hardship. I'm just not sure when you talk about infield, you're going infield with one or two distribution lines going to those lots or whatever lot, the other lines are still gonna be existing in an infill situation. You're not doing wholesale neighborhood. ... underground utility in existing neighborhoods. So, the feasibility of doing spot underground utilities just doesn't seem to make sense, but, uh, I think we've voiced our concerns and let them know. I know that's what we can do. Is there anybody from the audience that wants to comment on this? If not, uh, are there any further questions from the commission? Mr. Martin, do you have anything else to add? If not, then we'll turn it over to the commission to, uh, either discuss or bring a motion to approve or disapprove, or table, or whatever you wanna do. We have a motion. We need Collins here. For who? Let's call on you. Hi. Um, yeah, I'd like to make a motion. I mean, I support underground utilities and, uh, but I just see some, some cases where I think this could be a problem, especially if, when you have to do a waiver. When you bring a waiver up here in front of my other ten colleagues, uh, you don't know what's gonna happen. Not, not, not the ones I'm sitting with right now, but, future. Um, so, I, I would like to, to, uh, add to this. Can I do that, Mr. Martin? Can I change this? No, not really. You do have the option of recommending an alternative language back to the council. Yeah. In the end, the council will make the final decision on the exit they have initiated. Okay. Wha- what I would like to add to it or change about it, I would like to have, uh, two acre, 2.1 acre lots or less, uh, not included in this. And then existing overhead lines. And, and I don't know why I said 2.1 acres. It might be some other ... I had one of those one time, two acres wouldn't have been enough, but, um, and the existing overhead lines be allowed to, uh, stay. Now that wouldn't mean you couldn't put the lines from them to the house underground, but that those, or since we'd like a better definition, that's 200 amp in my opinion, to get away. So with that, I would move approval of those changes. All right, you, you have a motion with those changes. Is there a second? You've got the motion, yeah. Okay. I would like to exempt 2.1 acre tracts of land from this underground thing, and I would like to except, except, not accept, except existing overhead lines. Exempt. Exempt, exempt. Do you understand Mr. Craven's motion? And that's, I don't either . Well, pick four acres. I don't care. I'm just, I'm just saying that would be a small parcel that you might need to, a waiver on. I mean, it could be any size. I mean, maybe staff have some opinion of that. Is... Mr. Craven, let me ask you a question. Is your intent to try to keep infield projects from having to ask for waivers? Yes, I, I'd like to, if you had a real small project on a two acre lot or something, that you might not have to do a waiver. You could, you know, to pro- to, uh, show that you had a hardship. Um, um, I'll second the motion so that we can discuss it. All right, so you have a motion and a second there. Any discussion on Mr. Craven's motion? I do. Um, I, in spirit, I agree with the, with the, um, thoughts associated with the motion, but I'm, I'm not sure that I can prove it, that I can support the motion. Um, it feels to me like, um, the council really wants to have utilities placed underground, but the, the obstacles associated with existing infrastructure citywide, um, overhead is just... And I know we gotta start somewhere, but, um, I just see this being really a challenging problem for us to undertake. And, um, I think that, I think as, as Mr. Holmes pointed out, we have to start somewhere. And, uh, there's not a whole lot that we can do, but just start and see how it, uh, see how it rolls. And, um, if we need to adjust, we can, we can adjust accordingly. Any other discussion? Mr. Owens? Yeah, I guess just a statement or comment as far as my experiences on this. Uh, having 340 acres, uh, eight houses and, and eight barns, of which six of the eight barns, everything, including the houses, are underground. Uh, during the two ice storms that I remember, um, we were without electricity for 36 hours. Uh, simply put, underground works. Um- I would say it does. Yeah. Uh, I, I really think underground works. So, you know, I think this is a good idea. Um, I've got a question. It says 200 amps or greater. Uh, is my understanding that 200 amps we're going into, into houses? No, it's... Is that correct? So i- if it's 200 amps, it would not have to go underground? Uh, and that, and that's what I was trying to get- I would, yeah- ... clarification on. I have a 400 amp service in my house, so. And I've got underground and overhead lines. I mean, I don't know why I have all that, but, um. A- and, uh, like I said, I support the underground notion. Um, we always do that. The market's willing to pay for it and, uh, I support that. I would just like to see where you didn't have to... on a small track is something you could count on without trying to run a wafer- a waiver through here. Any other discussion? I, I have a question. Mr. Paulson. Um, on infill developments that would be characterized as mixed use, would this... would they be exempt from this? Is this that 200 amps? No. I think it was mentioned that this is... would cover all residential, but if we're looking at some of the infill developments that are being proposed that are part residential and part commercial and part retail, would these be exempt just because of the amps? Anyone? Mr. Paulson, these will go into the subdivision regulations, so most of the time it will depend on whether or not the property is proposed to be subdivided or made into smaller tracts. Um, an infill project on an existing lot that was going to remain its same geometry, this may not apply in that circumstance. Any others? Any other discussion? If not, you've heard the motion, you see it on the screen. Where are we? And we have a motion and a second. We need to vote on the motion. Motion fails. Uh, chair's still looking for a motion or discussion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I would like to move approval of, um, SAR 2009-2, amendment to article 6-5, um, parentheses A to require underground utilities as presented by staff. I'll second the motion. Motion been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Ready to vote on the motion. Motion passes. It'll go... It'll go back to the... to the council then with recommendation. All right, sir. I wish, I wish the council never started down that road, but they did, so. All right. We're, we're... we'll be hearing the Nicholasville Road small area plan. Is that the next thing on the... on the agenda, Mr. Duncan? Uh, Mr. Chair, I'm told that you have a performance bond issue on the agenda that may precede ours. And so I certainly don't want to step in front of, uh- Well- ... an item that you need to address. I don't have the, uh... I don't have this in front of me, so if we have a performance bond, we need to act on it. I don't have it. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for, um, for the surety's release, um, and the call for bonds in the memo dated November 12th, 2009- That's all right. ... from Ron St. Clair to Chris King. All right. Motion. A motion, a motion been made and seconded to release the call of the bonds. All those in favor, vote, I guess, if it comes up. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Taken care of. I didn't have it and I don't... go right ahead, sir. I saw it, but didn't have it. Ladies, could we lower the lights, please? Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, thank you. And thank you for this opportunity to present the South Nicholasville Road small area plan. With this meeting, we are capping a year-long process of public engagement where we not only learned about the extensive history of the South Nicholasville Road area, but heard about the hopes and the concerns of the people for whom this area is very important. We have an efficient presentation for you today. Uh, about three weeks ago, we sent you the, the full draft of this, of the Small Area Plan, so we hope you had an opportunity to review that. And we'll certainly address any questions or, or issues you have with that that we don't cover today. But, uh, at this point, we're going to try to hit the high spots and, uh, and also offer opportunity for public comment. So with that, we have a four-point presentation today, and we've already accomplished number one. We will also tell you today why and how we came about doing this Small Area Plan. We'll discuss the plan recommendations and we'll, we'll talk about the next steps for the plan. The South Nicholsville Road Small Area Plan was recommended in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. At that time, a number of property owners in this area approached the planning commission about re-characterizing their properties and the land uses on that. We had extensive discussion about that, and the planning commission decided that this area needed more particular study, similar to what you did with the central sector and the east end. So with that, we got together with the two district, uh, council representatives in this area and created a steering committee that, uh, o- of people who were knowledgeable about this area. The purpose of the steering committee was to advise the staff and to communicate issues back to their constituencies. Joan Whitman represented the planning commission on this steering committee. And Mr. Chair, I'd like to also ask if, uh, any members of the audience who were serving on the steering committee would stand along with Miss Whitman so that we can show our appreciation for their service to this process. We also engaged in an extensive community outreach program. And following the, the requirements of statute for comprehensive plans, we, uh, we in- we conducted the appropriate research and the public outreach. We held five steering committee meetings with this, uh, pro- over the, over the year-long process. We held two focus group meetings, one with the religious institutions in this area. There are four churches and the Islamic, uh, Center. We also held a focus group with the residential property owners in the study area. We held three public input meetings at various points. We also collected information from opinion surveys and comment forms. And then today, we're holding a public hearing for the Small Area Plan. We communicated information about the plan through a dedicated website, through press releases that resulted in newspaper coverage. We created and distributed flyers to the neighborhoods about, uh, upcoming meetings, created an extensive contacts database, worked through our neighborhood associations to convey information, and put, uh, information about meetings on the government, uh, access television. The Small Area Plan, if you've had a chance to review it, you will see that it's similar to a Comprehensive Plan in that it incu- includes a vision and principles section, which is similar to goals and objectives. It also includes the various land, uh, or the various elements that, uh, the Comprehensive Plan requires that we, we analyze, as well as recommendations for future use and a discussion and list of short-term and long-term implementation tasks. The vision and principle... and by the way, you'll notice, uh, on, in fact, I s- failed to mention, you should have a handout that, uh, of the, of the sm- of the, uh, PowerPoint presentation. And you'll notice, on some of these slides, there's a page number referenced. That, uh, goes back to the plan itself. So if you have a copy of the plan and you wanna see more details, for instance, the vision and principles are, are, start on page nine, if you wanna follow along that way. The vision statement was crafted by the steering committee as a result of the public input, and it includes, i- it really represents a unification of ideas that embraces bold, new initiatives for this area. These initiatives are embodied in sustainable community, a healthy environment, a celebration of what is important and the values of this area, certainly economic strength, and then residential vitality. The plan and the vision statement really do compel us towards more subtle expressions of continuity and relationships within this area. We don't just see individual parcels as areas that need to be redeveloped. Uh, the vision statement, the, the, um, the principles, and the objectives that go along with that really call for this to be approached in a unified way. The principles are essentially the goals of the s- of the Small Area Plan, and they include a number of attendant objectives. First of all, we wanna make sure that we embody, with this plan, the elements that have been adopted in previous plans, including the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and other related plans. We also want to create, to the extent that we are able, a desirable corridor by celebrating the culture and the heritage of this area. Based on the number of faith-based institutions, we are keenly aware of the, uh, strong element of public and community facilities in this area, and we want to ensure that other opportunities are given for schools, for libraries, for other type community facilities as this area develops into the future. Again, we want to ensure economic vitality. And because of the high profile nature along the roads, we want to ensure s- improved safety and mobility for people and vehicles. Now, going back to the vision statement, we said we wanted to approach this as a unified effort. Uh, a- and, and we, and we do, but we also broke this down, uh, to help us understand the different areas and the particular needs of the areas into five subareas. Uh, we labeled the areas on, just on the west side of the railroad tracks as Subarea 1, north and south, and then following counterclockwise, Subarea 2, 3, and 4. Now together, this comprises about 385 acres, uh, of land. Three of the sub areas are large parcels that are presently farmed or, or part of UK's horticultural research farm. And then two of the smaller sub areas have some vacant property in them, but they also include, uh, businesses and other residences in, in the area, so we felt it was important to address those relationships. The overall recommendations for the plan go back to the vision, and they, they call for things that, that flow from one sub area to the next, uh, irrespective of what kind of development may happen in the future. Uh, these, these 12 overall recommendations include an identity for this area, uh, in, in a couple of ways. Number one, this area is adjacent to and abuts Jessamine County, the City of Nicholasville now has annexed property, uh, adjacent to the Fayette County line, so we feel it's important that as this, as this area develops into the future and even now, if, if to the extent that we're able, is that we identify this area as Fayette County. When you cross that line, you know you're someplace special. You know you're not someplace else. You know you're in Fayette County, so we'd like to see that celebrated at the entrances of the county, but perhaps arou- throughout this corridor. But there's also an extensive history, uh, anchored somewhat by Waveland, the Waveland State Historic Site, and so we see opportunities for future development to, especially for the, the, uh, developments around Waveland to, uh, play off the style and the history of Waveland in, in any sort of future development there. So identity is an important component throughout this planning area. Traffic and transit improvements are important. Uh, we consulted both with LexTran and with the Kentucky, uh, Transportation Cabinet to talk about what their future hopes are for this area. We wanna see more bus routes. We wanna see other road improvements along Nicholasville Road, so, so we talk about that in the overall recommendations. We believe it's important to protect the natural features and the historic features of this area. We wanna see complete streets incorporated throughout the development, um, and we certainly want to see, as you'll see as we're talking about the, the specific recommendations for the sub areas, that mixed use, land use, mixed use development is an important consideration. We see that as part of the bold new initiative for this area. Now we're gonna go over, uh, hit the high points for the five sub areas. Janice and I will share this duty, and we'll start off with Sub Area 1 North. This is the largest single parcel in the study area. Uh, it's the UK Horticultural Research Farm, over here on the corner of Man O' War Boulevard and Nicholasville Road. It's bounded on the west by the railroad tracks, the Norfolk Southern Railroad, and on the south by the Waveland Museum. This is an active agricultural classroom for the University of Kentucky. There are indoor and outdoor labs. There are plots. There are, uh, lots of activities for the faculty and for students for research purposes on this, so this is, uh, current- this is certainly a vital and active, uh, par- piece of property, but it's for the University of Kentucky. And so we do wanna make clear that as we're talking about the future of this parcel and of all of these parcels, that the present uses are, are certainly up to the, the, the property owners. They're, they're primarily, especially these large parcels being used as farms, this in particular a UK classroom, and we're not recommending that that be changed necessarily. But at the point that the property owners, and in this case particularly UK, decides that this is no longer a farm or classroom purposes and they want to, uh, make this available for development, much like they did the parcel across the street where the Walmart and Lowe's are, then we have some specific recommendations. We would like to see, uh, th- and I say we, I don't want to imply that this is a staff. This is the culmination of the public input and the steering committee process, so I really should say the plan calls for this area to be mixed use with, with green space land uses. The plan calls for the area to have no less than 15% of the, of the development residential and a new road that's constructed from Man O' War Boulevard through the property into the Sub Area 1 South, a collector road. And then, uh, it, it also calls for a buffer of the Waveland, uh, State Historic Site. Again, this recommendation is for the future. Once UK decides that they're no longer going to use this as a classroom, these are the recommendations that the plan calls for that would be best for the future of this area. Good afternoon. I'm gonna continue on with the PowerPoints. So very one south, this area is made up of two large farm parcels, agricultural parcels. It is bounded by Nicholasville Road on the east, Waveland Museum Lane on the north, railroad tracks on the west, and Jessamine County, the county line, on the south. This area also has Waveland, uh, the Waveland Historic Shrine fronting on Waveland Museum Lane. The front facade of the Waveland Museum is actually 150 feet from the right-of-way of Waveland M- Museum Lane. This area is about 109 acres. The recommendations for Sub Area 1 South include mixed use and green space with at least 15% residential. This mixed-use recommendation would help tie this area to the other areas in the small area plan, and also to the surrounding neighborhoods. Mixed use would be a better match than the traditional strip mall development, based upon the public input we received during the small area plan process. Since it is currently zoned before, a mixed-use recommendation for this sub-area would provide additional opportunities for future development. A collector road is also recommended for this sub-area, which would connect to the one Jim described in Subarea 1 North, continue approximately parallel to Nicholasville Road, and connect from Waveland Museum Lane all the way down to the county boundary, with the opportunity of future connectivity to Jessamine County on the Jessamine County side, upon development of that area. Green space is recomme- recommended as a buffer along Waveland Museum Lane on this sub-area, to buffer the Waveland historic site. And also, a, a similar amount of green space is recommended at the corner, uh, at adjacent to Nicholasville Road at the county line as a gateway entrance area. Subarea 2, this area is approximately 25 acres. It includes some existing businesses, the King's Garden Center, the Nicholasville Road Animal Hospital, the Lexington Universal Academy, which is a private school, and then also a vacant parcel that is about 18 acres. It's, um, right now, currently vacant. It runs along the, uh, southern portion of the South Point neighborhood. There are quite a few single-family homes that abut that property. There are also some stub streets from the South Point neighborhood that are existing along that vacant property. And the recommendations are to maintain the comprehensive plan, this 2007 comprehensive plan land uses as they are, and that would mean that vacant property, the large triangular-shaped property, would remain as low density. There's also a greenway that runs along that property horizontally. It is in the area... It starts... It's from a regional stream that comes from Jessamine County. You can see where it runs along, uh, the corner of su- Subarea 1 South, goes under Nicholasville Road into this large vacant parcel. So that is on our Greenways Master Plan, which was adopted as part of our 2007 comprehensive plan as a conservation greenway. There is also a FEMA flood plain that runs along that portion where the stream is in that vacant parcel. And again, that would be recommended to have a welcome sign into Lexington. Subarea 3 is located at approximately the intersection of Nicholasville Road, Cobblestone Road, and Waveland Museum Lane. It's to the east of that intersection. It includes a residential subdivision, all single family detached, and also the Redmond's Garden Center and the Giuseppe's Restaurant. Both of those businesses have been existing for a very long time. They front... Those two businesses front on the oak- on the old Nicholasville Road, and there's also a vacant property in, in between all of those properties there at the corner of the intersection. It's about five acres. It has a pond and is currently vacant. The recommendations for this sub-area are to keep it as low density residential and green space. That portion, about a little over half of that triangular-shaped area that's vacant, is recommended as green space on the 2007 comp plan. The, um, the residential area, the change on this would be that, that residential area, that single family detached homes will be changed to be a low density residential recommendation instead of what is recommended on the 2007 comp plan as medium density. Subarea 4 makes up... is approximately 113 acres. It includes four churches. There is Southern Acres Christian Church on the north side of the sub-area. Also, the Dovendale Baptist Church on East Tiverton Way, Pax Christi Catholic Church at the intersection of Victoria Way and Man O' War, and then fronting on Nicholasville Road at the southern portion of this sub-area is the Porter Memorial Baptist Church. There are two farm parcels on, on this sub-area. The northern larger parcel has a garden center on it currently, and then there is a farm being farmed the southern... the southeastern corner. There are also some single-family homes in this sub-area, uh, surrounding the churches and surrounding the farms and in between the farm and the churches. The recommendations for Subarea 4 are for mixed-use land use for that farm that is north of Man O' War Boulevard. That's the larger of the farm parcels. It... The ene- uh, a secondary recommendation for that area is that only residential uses be allowed abutting those existing residential uses around the farm. Another recommendation is that if those... parcels, the, at the southeast corner of this, of Man O' War and Nicholasville Road, uh, notably the Porter Memorial Church, the single family homes along Toronto Drive, which are in between that church and the farm at the corner, and then also the farm. If all those parcels were to be consolidated in the future, the recommendation would be for a mixed-use land use. Otherwise, they would stay the same as what's on the comprehensive plan. This map shows the current greenways, uh, as far as what level of progress. Some of the greenways are merely proposed at this point, and they're on the Greenways Master Plan adopted as green- uh, greenway location and shared-use trail areas. Also, some of them have been funded already, and some of them have been constructed, notably the one on the west side of the railroad tracks that runs down, uh, that portion of the subarea one north, along the UK Horticultural Research Farm, but on the other side. And there are ways to connect those trails, uh, other than going across the road. Uh, like under ni- there's a cow- a livestock tunnel under Nicholasville Road, so that would be used to connect these greenways. Also, there is a livestock tunnel under the railroad that could be used. And I've been in that one. So has another staff member. So we had to go and take pictures. We wanted to see it for ourselves, but it is really neat. And it's a great opportunity to conne-connect up that trail right along the railroad. You can, uh, we could... People can ride their bikes and walk back and forth the areas. This is our future land use map, and you can see it here in the, on the easel. The recommendations are showing some changes from our 2007 Comprehensive Plan, and all th- this map reflects all of the recommendations that we've talked about and, and that are in the text of our plan. And this would be adopted as an amendment to our 2007 Comprehensive Plan as the new future u- future land uses for this area. Some of the parcels are remaining the same. As you can see, the large purple, uh, areas would be the mixed-use land use recommendations, and some additional green space recommendations, and some of them are remaining the same. This is a picture... You're not expected to be able to read this, but a picture of our implementation table on page 71. And overall, our recommendations are for implementation of this small area plan. They include, uh, for the major things, expanding transit services and facilities, uh, pursuing the resolving of some of the safety issues, the transportation safety issues in the area, uh, connecting... Creating or designing and constructing the greenways in this area, and, and working on a welcoming gateway entrance to Fayette County at the county line. And that's in the PowerPoint. I wanna thank you and, for your time, and I wanna thank all the people that were involved in the small area plan. We had a lot of people volunteering time, just as you do, and our, our wonderful steering committee. We had a, a great group of people that worked with us, and we had a lot of neighborhood association peop- uh, representatives that were very, uh, committed and, and actually recruited their, uh, people in their neighborhoods to hand out flyers, and we had lots of help from other divisions in the Fayette County Urban... The urban county government, place in Fayette urban county government. Had lots of other divisions, uh, providing information, and we had a lot of other staff in our division of planning, other than Long Range, that contributed to this plan. I wanna thank everyone for their help. Now I wanna open up to questions. Thank you, Janice. Any questions for Janice or for, uh, any of the staff? Lynne? Um. I'll get to you. Any... Did anybody on staff or among the public talk about the potential for transit-oriented development around those, the rail line and if you've already got existing tunnels under Nicholasville Road and, and under the rail line, it seems that that might be a good place to think about, um, some sort of a long-term program involving that rail line and accommodating development needs around it. Well, we, we did... The plan does recommend, uh, the addition of a dedicated bus line on Nicholasville Road. It also, it recommends a addition of 45 feet of right of way on Nicholasville Road, and a, a inter- intersection improvement at Man O' War and Nicholasville Road, and lots of other transit additions like a transfer center, but, um, and, and I guess in answers your question, in place of a mass transit opportunity, I guess, what this plan is recommending is a dedicated bus line on Nicholasville Road, which would be like a... bus, express bus line. And, and to, to expand on that, uh, that, that recommendation came from LexTran itself. We met with them, and, uh, of course, we heard from the citizens about the need for increased transit service in that area without defining what that might be. LexTrans suggested that that, uh, uh, uh, a dedicated bus line would be something that they would like to pursue. The existing tunnels themselves will, of course, be part of the transportation system, just not the motorized transportation system. So- ... we do expect that, uh, the trails, it will connect up into Shilhatog Park and then, and further points west or east rather, we'll, we'll be able to use those tunnels. Mr. Paulson, let's, let's go with you then we'll come to Mr. Holmes, or wh- whichever one wants to go first. It doesn't matter. . And, and we do actually call for, for transit-oriented development within the, within the, uh, sub areas. So that, that's, that's one of the features of the mixed use that we'd like to see is pedestrian oriented development that, uh, that also accommodates, uh, extensively the bus system and, and whatever transit type service we have available in the future. Mr. Holmes. Yeah, I was just gonna follow up on that. I'm glad to see the ............................but also, uh, in your implementation you talk about other modes or of, of transit service that might be available, whether it's dedicated lines or, or something. But I, I guess to address the, the traffic along Nicholasville Road, I'm, I'm glad to see that, those are some recommendations in there and consent to continue to pursue those 'cause we need that. Mr. Owens. Uh, yes. Uh, I can't remember if it is Subarea One North or South. One of those two recommendation was for mixed use with at least 15% residential, 15%, at least 15%. Is that- That's correct for both of them. For both of them. Why a minimum of 15%? Should that be increased? Well, that was a, a, a point of discussion throughout the process and, uh, c- certain members of the committee felt it should be higher, uh, others were concerned that it was, was too much in that area. The 15% represents the minimum that's required in mixed use development. So they really, it, it, the way that, uh, the, as, as we understand it, you couldn't do any less than 15% in mixed use development anyway. So we're calling for no less than the minimum. Uh, certainly if there's an opportunity to do more, I think the plan would embrace that. Okay. So, okay, well, let's discuss it. And then also Subarea Three, going from medium density to low densities, uh, kind of the same question, reasons behind that. The medium density rec, sorry about that. The medium density land use that was put on there in the 2007 comprehensive plan was probably due to a measurement of how many units per acre and that density probably met the range, well, actually did meet the range at the lower end of medium density. To protect that, part of this, uh, our principles in this plan is to protect the existing residential neighborhoods and to protect that neighborhood from any development pressures because of the fact that with its frontage on Nicholasville Road and its designation as medium density, it was at risk of, uh, someone pursuing m- mixed use because of the mixed use, uh, zoning would allow that there, and because there's a lack of access with no sigmas intersection at Waveland Museum Lane and Nicholasville Road, and the fact that that neighborhood only has access to get on Nicholasville Road, it's the only way out. Um, we recommended changing it to low density to protect that neighborhood from future development. And it, it, it's already developed anyway, so what, what we're thinking about is any sort of future redevelopment, we think it would be better to integrate that into the, uh, development that's, it's already in the area. Any other questions before we open it up? This is a public hearing. We do want to hear from the audience, and if any of you want to come forward and, and, and speak to this, to the small area plan, we welcome you to do that at this time. Yes, sir. Please give us your name and either address or association. Uh, my name is Frank Butler. I serve as the Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration at the University of Kentucky. Um, I wanted to make really two quick points with the, uh, with the commission here. One is that we don't have any immediate plans for doing anything with South Farm. Uh, so we anticipate continuing operating it as a horticultural rec- research center for the immediate future. But we also know that 20 or 30 years from now, uh, the use of that may be entirely different. So I want to go on record as supporting the recommendations, uh, for mixed use development for South Farm. Uh, we think it's a better designation than the 2007 recommendation, which was light industrial and research park. Uh, we've got all we can handle with Research Park At Coal Stream. . We don't need a second research park. Thank you. Uh, so we would like to en- enthusiastically endorse the recommendation. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Butler. So 15 or 20 years from now, Mr. Wiseman will be taking care of developing that, is that? I think so. Thank you. Any further comment from the audience? Ms. Wiseman? Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm here on behalf of, uh, Jeanette German and Logan German, her son, who are sitting in the back of the room. Uh, they are part of the Dale family, which is on the property that's referred on your, uh, maps as Subarea One South. Uh, they own the part that's the address of 200 Waveland Museum Lane, that's about 40 acres. The property immediately south of that that's part of the subarea is owned by Mrs. German's brother, Landy Dale, and that's another 60 acres. He's out of, uh, the state, so I'm speaking on his behalf as well. Uh- The first thing I wanna say on behalf of my clients, and Logan was part of the steering committee, is to echo what Janice said, the appreciation for the time, uh, that was put into this. The input that you received, not only from the many, uh, citizens that came, but also from the property owners who obviously have a, a stake in this, and the time that, uh, Jeff, uh, uh, Jim and Janice spent with, uh, Logan and the other clients individually. So we appreciate that. Uh, we are here, though, to respectfully disagree with that recommendation, notwithstanding the, the process that, uh, you have gone through to reach that recommendation, but we do disagree with it. Uh, but we respect the process that you've gone through. To, uh... And one thing I wanna say before giving you a little background, the, the thrust of this plan is mixed-use development. Obviously, that's all the purple that you see on our property there to the south, the university property to the north, and the Fritz property on the other side of Nicholasville Road. Our position is not one that disputes the validity of a mixed-use concept, so this is not to say mixed-use is not something that this community ought not to pursue. Uh, our contention is that this property in this location is not the place to do it. Mixed-use is still a relatively new concept. I'm not talking nationally, I'm talking about in terms of Fayette County. Our regulations are new. There have been very few developments, and they have been small in scale, nothing much more than four or five acres. We are now putting on the plan hundreds of acres in this category that we really haven't tested yet. It is something totally new. Again, we're not disputing that that's not a good concept, but the question we ask you to consider today, notwithstanding all the meetings and discussions you've had, but is this property, which is on Nicholasville Road, which the plan acknowledges is one of the heaviest traveled roads in Fayette County, that the state wants to take 45 feet more to widen, that is a major commuter route from the counties south of us and will be their way to jobs in Fayette County or their way to get to the interstate unless there's another solution, which I doubt. This traffic is only going to increase. Uh, we're not gonna change that by this designation. Do we really think that this concept is gonna work where we've got the railroad on the other side that carries over 60 trains a day? This property is cut off. There's not going to be an easy way to integrate this property, th- the Dale property, I'll call it, with the other areas because of the barrier that is Nicholasville Road that will get wider and the barrier that is the railroad. Uh, the other imaginary line that we have to keep in mind is Jessamine County. And although we all want there to be regional planning, we don't have it and the part of the county that borders us on the Jessamine County comprehensive plan, the 2006 plan, is shown for light industrial right next to our property and professional office. And as you go further out Nicholasville Road, it's highway commercial. Now, that is not necessarily what we want in Fayette County, but it's what potentially could be next to this property and is going to have an impact on how it's going to develop, uh, in the future. We're not arguing about whether this ought not to develop because it's been in the urban service area since the beginning. What we're, what our concern is that there ought to be an appropriate land use that is more consistent with what this property actually is. The little background I wanted to give you, I refer to the Dale family. Uh, this was owned most recently by Mrs. German's father, William Dale, who farmed this property and a larger farm for many, many years. In fact, she told me today it's been their family since 1880. And you have a letter that you got from Logan and Mr. Dale, and I think they point out in there, with the exception of Mr. Fritz and his family, there's no other landowner in Fayette County that can speak more, uh, with more knowledge about the changes on Nicholasville Road than the Dale family. The, many of the citizens who came to these meetings and said they didn't, they wanted to save the farmland and didn't want more, uh, commercial or more traffic live on subdivisions that used to be farms. Mr. Dale's family happens to hand the last farm and you know what it's like to be the last one, uh, in the pool. Sometimes you're not very welcome in that swimming pool. Uh, and it is farm now. The tunnel that we've talked about is actively used now. The triangle that's actually in this north area that's been spoken of is, um, where the water source for the cattle are and they do, uh, use that tunnel today to go back and forth to the farm. One aside, uh, in terms of the future use of that tunnel, Logan reminds me that this is designed for a cattle tunnel. It's, it also is not designed but functions as a storm sewer and in times of, uh, heavy rains, that fills up, so any consideration of using that, there's gonna have to be, you know, it'll have to be appropriately designed or, um, we'll have a waterway there that we didn't intend to have on Nicholasville Road. Um, as I said, this is not intended to be a criticism of mixed-use. It's just a question of whether this is the place it ought to be. It's even in the text, the, the staff acknowledges, uh, that because of the factors such as Nicklesville Road and, uh, the railroad, that those are factors that you ought to have non-residential up against it to buffer because it's not suitable for residential. Well, by the time you buffer this property from a 45-foot wide Nicklesville Road on the east and the railroad on the west, and buffer yourself from whatever's gonna happen in Jessamine County, what does that really leave you in terms of an appropriate area for the type of mixed use that is contemplated by this plan? We, we just don't think that it is an appropriate location. The other thing we'd like you to think about is, uh, the other possibility of this property, and that's as an employment center. This property's been shown on the comprehensive plan since '73 as an employment center, either industrial or wholesale and, and warehouse. And we don't have lots of blocks of land set aside in this community for future employment, and this is one of the last ones. And I wanna show you a, a diagram if I can put it on the overhead. Let's see. ...
The, the point I wanna make, it's, I don't know if you can see, this is from the '96 comprehensive plan, and I don't think there's a similar map in the 2007 plan. This was a di- a map to show major employment areas, future and existing. The yellow are the existing and then I don't remember even what that color is, but sort of gray is what you're looking at, are future. What ought to strike you when you look at this map and has been talked about in our comprehensive plans many, many times, is the total imbalance. All the employment centers, future and existing, are on the north side of town and there's one on the south side. That would be the Dale property and the Univer- University of Kentucky property. Uh, the plan has said, and you've seen cases here where we've tried to redre- readdress or redress that imbalance by putting more residential in the north side so that people live closer to where we work. And that has been accomplished somewhat on the north side, northwest with more subdivisions, but we haven't, uh, done anything to reallocate that balance on the south side. I know that we're zoned B4, but you're gonna make a statement in this plan about the appropriate land use. A mixed use is not an employment center. It's not something that can be looked at as they're available for economic opportunity. This is important to this community. Uh, we're in a recession. We might be at the end of it, we might be at the beginning of the end of it, but we're in a recession. We're suffering from job loss, not just nationally, but in this community. Fayette County's, uh, unemployment rate is 8.3%. We've lost jobs in construction, manufacturing, quality jobs that sustain this e- economy are leaving and it's a hit to this government, which gets most of its tax revenue from occupational license fees. Now, these colors on the map aren't gonna change that overnight, but we're planning for the future and there have to be places when those jobs come back for them to go. This was intended to be an employment center. Nothing really has changed in the time that we've envisioned this as employment center. Certainly, the intensification along Nicklesville Road has grown. What has changed is now that we're talking about mixed use, and again, that is a great land use and it's great where it would work. We don't think it's suitable for this location and for that reason, we would ask that you, uh, at this point just keep the existing land use on the property so that this can continue to be opportunity for employment. That's all we have unless you have questions. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Wiseman? If not, thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Thank you. Anybody else from public comments section want to speak to this? Mr. Harper, welcome back. I came down here today to, uh, uh, basically thank the planning staff and the planning commission for including, uh, myself and my staff at the Bluegrass Area Development District in this small pla- you know, small area planning effort. Um, we are un- in the process of undertaking a, a, uh, a combined or, or producing a combined comprehensive plan for, uh, the, for Jessamine County. Jessamine County up to this point has two planning commissions. One is for the city of Nicklesville and the other is the county and the city of Wilmore. They made a, a, a decision to collectively produce a comprehensive plan, uh, and we're, we're just about finished. We will present a, a final draft, uh, here in the next couple of weeks, but in the process, US27 of course is a very significant ar- artery. It's one that we share, um, between Jessamine County and, and, and Fayette County and the land use up and down that corridor is, is important. So, um, myself or my, or, or, or one of my staff members has been involved in the, in the process all along. Uh, we think that it, it has produced a... ... uh, an excellent result and, uh, uh, to this point, we would, uh, uh, recommend your, your, uh, uh, uh, approval of this smaller plan. Any questions for Mr. Harper? If not, thank you, sir. You bet. Anybody else? Mr. Fritz, you have anything to say to us today? Not that I can think of. I'll give you five minutes. I know better than to let you just have the microphone. Mr. Chairman, I, I, I really didn't have anything prepared, but, uh, I can say that we've been fighting this battle since in the '80s about trying to get, you know, something zoned. Things have changed a whole lot in our area out, out on Nicholasville Road. The traffic, uh, is go- like Mrs. Wiseman said, it's gonna continue to get worse. Uh, as they, you know, keep building in Chesapeake County. Sam's Club is gonna start building right away, so uh, we just feel like that, uh, our farm, I know we're, we're, we've got mixed use on that, but we feel like there's, there's a need for probably more non-residential use on our farm due to, just because of the, the large traffic volume that goes on both ways. We're right on the corner of Man O' War and Nicholasville Road. Uh, last year Jesseman County alone had 5,000 EM runs by our house. That's just Jesseman County. That's not counting Garrett, uh, Lincoln, Casey, Pulaski. So about every 15 minutes we have a siren goes by. The noise level is tremendous out there, uh, not only from sirens but traffic noise. Where other mixed use, you know, wh- whether it gets far enough to buffer the, the noise problem, I don't know. But, uh, we feel like that, and we do know we had to buffer some next to the existing residential areas, but we feel like the majority of it's probably going to have to be non-residential areas because of that reason. And, uh, other than that, uh, I think that we watched everything grow around us and, uh, we've, uh, uh, just probably a good thing my dad's not alive today. Probably. But I appreciate your time. Appreciate the, the committee and commi- appreciate you all, your time. Any questions for Mr. Fritz? If not, thank you, sir, and uh, we certainly understand where you're coming from. Thank you. All right. Anybody else that's w- you don't have to be part of the committee if you're just a citizen live out that way. You've seen the plan. Uh, this is a public comment section, the public hearing, and we welcome your comments, welcome your input. If there's nobody else, I want to not only thank those of you on the committee, and Miss Whitman and, and the rest of the staff for this small area plan, I want to thank the citizens that got involved in that, because this was your opportunity to, to talk about this area and not just your particular part of it, but what you'd like to see. Uh, Mr. Duncan, thank you for your service, and Janice. Uh, does the commission have any, anything they want to discuss before we, uh, before we talk about the plan? If not, Mr. King, if you give us some direction on, on, I guess the question is, what do we do with this plan? How is it adopted and, and what happens to it after we, uh, after we act on it? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe a, uh, possible resolution for you to adopt has been distributed and is available at your places. We will certainly entertain any questions that you may have about any of the comments that have been made, but our recommendation is that you proceed to adopt the small area plan, certainly as presented at this point. But you do, of course, have the option of considering changes. Once adopted, this does become the official comprehensive plan for the community as it relates to these properties, and therefore will become the guide for future zone changes and also public actions, uh, within this area anytime the, the comprehensive plan is to be consulted. All right, sir. I haven't been able to find that resolution and we're diligently digging up here for it. Um, d- does anybody have a copy of it? Chris, I'm not sure that those have been copied. We do have it over here. We can get that in just a moment if we need to. Thank you. You want to read it to me? Before we, before Mike reads this resolution on the small area plan, uh, does anybody on the commission want to address any part of it? Do you want to discuss it in any length, uh, or any particular area? Or are you ready to hear the resolution? Mr.- I have a question. Ms. Phelps. Um, I just wanted to ask staff with respect to, um, um, Mr. Dale property, the Logan German and Leroy Dale property. Um, the letter that we received, if that property were to go under the recommendation, uh, the recommended land use of mixed use, um, does that mean that for a rezoning, let's say to a warehouse and wholesale. ... um, zoning classification that there could potentially be an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and would therefore stop our being able to recommend approval to the council on that? Could the, could the inconsistency between what the map says and a potential rezoning, um, cause problems down there? I will only start to answer that question and defer to, to our folks who know more about zoning to that. It does pre- it is presently zoned B4. It is not a, an agricultural zone, so the B4, I believe, is consistent with the present land use of wholesale warehouse. Changing the land use on the comprehensive plan would not alter the zoning and it should not alter their pursuit of any uses that are, are available to them under the B4. I- if, if that needs to be clarified, I'd certainly invite ... Thank you. That's, I didn't realize the property was currently zoned that way. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? If not, Mike. The chairman has volunteered me for various things in the past, I'm not sure why I got this, but, uh, I'll give him my best shot. Um, whereas KRS100.187 to 100.197 set forth the procedures for periodic update and review of a comprehensive plan elements and whereas the comprehensive plan, goals and objectives statement element for the 2007 comprehensive plan was adopted by the planning commission on October 20th 2005, and subsequently adopted by the Urban County Council on March two- M- March 9, 2006 by resolution number 106-2006, as required by KRS100.197. And whereas the statement of goals and reje- objectives acts as a guide for the preparation of the remaining elements to aid in implementing the comprehensive plan. And whereas the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council having adopted the said statement and goals and re- objectives, the planning commission may adopt other elements of the comprehensive plan pursuant to KRS Chapter 100. And whereas the Planning Commission finds that the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan is consistent with the statement and statement of goals and, and objectives. And whereas the Planning Commission finds that the research undertaken as part of the update and adoption of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, and in addition, the research performed specifically in preparation for the small, I'm sorry, South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan fully support the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan as an element of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. And whereas, in compliance with KRS Chapter 100, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly-advertised public hearing on November 12, 2009 to receive comments and information from all interested persons. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission, Section 1, the planning, that the planning commission hereby adopts the S- South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan as an element of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan for Lexington-Fayette County. The South Ni- South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan includes the text and the maps presented to the commission. Section 2, that this resolution will, with the attached text and the maps adopted herein shall be referred to as the South Nicholasville Road Small A- Area Plan Element of 2007 Comprehensive Plan for Lexington-Fayette Urban County. Section 3, that the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan Element of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan shall supercede all com- comprehensive plans recommendations previously adopted by the planning commission for the land area within the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan, which are inconsistent with any maps, texts, or recommendations contained in the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan. Section 4, it is the intent o- of the planning commission that the zoning ordinance, land subdivision regulations and the zone map atlas currently in effect on the date of adoption of this resolution shall remain in full force o- and effect unless and until duly amended by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council after receipt of a recommendation by this planning commission. Section 5, the Director of the Division of Planning is directed to forward this resolution and the documents mentioned herein to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council for information and use. Section 6, the resolution shall become effective on the date of its a- adoption. Adopted by the Lexington-Fayette County Urban County Planning Commission on this day, f- twelfth day of November 2009. Y- you've heard the resolution, is there a motion to adopt the resolution? So moved. Second. Second by Ms. Richardson. Any discussion on the resolution? If not, as soon as you see it on the screen, vote. The small area plan's adopted. Again, thanks to the people that participated and, uh, thanks to the staff and all their hard work. That's a nice shirt. That's all right. . You, you volunteered me for the worst one. . That's all right. . All right, we have, uh, a little bit of time, so let's, uh, let's move on to the next item, which is the approval of the consent agenda. Would anyone like to discuss or object anything that was on the consent agenda? We have a staff report for Fayette County Schools. Barb, whenever you're ready, we'll try to be. Okay. If you could put the map up first, Bill, please. Sure. This is item C under commission items. It's PFR2009-6. And it's, uh, public facility review for Yates Elementary School, the renovation. The property's located on East New Circle Road. We've got New Circle... New Circle Road is the curved road right there. The pointer is not working. Industry Road is the road that goes off to the left there. And Sunshine Lane is the road that goes off to the right just above there. Um, it's about a 15-acre property, and as you can see, it's on the east side of New Circle Road. It's zoned R2 and it's surrounded by residential, commercial, and industrial zoning. And the uses are mainly single-family residential and commercial. We've got, um, on the corner of Industry Road and New Circle, you've got Green's Toyota. That would probably be the most, the most recognized landmark. And then to the east, um, southeast, the subdivision is, um, Eastland Park Subdivision. And then to the north, right above the property is, um, Yates Park Subdivision. The school building, as you can see, it's an interesting configuration right now. It i- contains 60,335 square feet. And they wanna do some selective demolition and add 10,000 square feet of building. I've tried to show on here the two little jogs that come out at the bottom of the school, or in the front of the school property, and then the connector between the square portion up there and the main port- part of the school are going to be demolished. And then they're going to, um, add 10,000 square feet of building distributed around the school to make it a more cohesive space. Bill, if you could put that up, please. The pieces that are shown in orange are the pieces that they're adding. And you can see that it'll, it'll be much more, much more unified and cosi- cohesive of a design. Access right now is from New Circle Road, and they want to open up Martha Court to provide an additional access point. And that is down here, the cul-de-sac that stubs into the property, that will be opened up right there. There's a cul-de-sac that stubs into the property. It actually is part of the property, and it will be opened up to provide additional access. And then the parking, um, they will have 16 spaces in excess of what's required by the zoning ordinance by the time everything is done. They need 78 as far as the zoning ordinance requirement, but they'll have 94. We haven't heard of any support or opposition voiced for this project, and so we don't know of any offhand. The comprehensive plan recommends public education land use. And that is in recognition of its existing use as a s- as a school and the desire for it to remain as such. Public education is a category that includes all the public schools and includes the central offices and all accessory facilities for the elementary, middle, and high schools. In reviewing the comp plan, um, relative to the expansion and the, and the site improvements, there is nothing in opposition to this, and, in fact, everything is in support of it. The text of the land use element and the com- community facilities chapter both support this wholeheartedly. And then there are five goals and 14 objectives that either support this or the project supports them, one or the other. Unlike some of the public schools that are listed in the comprehensive plan, ones that we've reviewed, Cassidy Elementary, um, Julia Ewen, we didn't review, but that was part of the, one of the ones that was listed for demolition and then Leestown Middle School. Th- Yates is not listed as one to be renovated specifically or to be replaced, but the, uh, condition of it is listed as fair. And the ones that are listed as poor to fair or fair are generally the ones that are in need of, of improvement. The text of the plan states that one of the chief concerns of the public school system is, um, to provide safe, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing state-of-the-art facilities for their students. And they also wanna be a world-class school system by 2020. And so doing this expansion and renovation will help to get into that program. It will, um, add four classrooms, four preschool classrooms, an administrative suite, new entry vestibules, four resource classrooms, and a connector between the cafeteria. You can see that one orange space to the top or to the east of the school building, the east side of the school building, that I think is the connector between the cafeteria and the school. They're doing ADA accessibility upgrades, they're doing replacement of the HVAC system, and then site work will include an enlarged drainage basin, um, rain garden plantings. They'll replace the existing walkways and then they'll add some new walkways. And then there's the revised drop-off loop behind the, behind the school. And based on the assessed condition of the school, um, this renovation is in keeping with the desire of the s- school system to, to become a world-class school system. And it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan goals and objectives, the compli- the comprehensive plan text. And so we are recommending approv- approval of it. I will be glad to answer any questions if you have any. Steve Garland is here from Sherman Carter Barnhardt Architects, and they're the ones that did the site plan and the, and the school layout. Do you have any questions at all? Any questions for Ms. Rikers? What's the timeframe on this? Steve? Good afternoon. I'm Steve Garland with Sherman Carter Barnhardt. Uh, we'll be breaking it up into three phases and March, we wanna be turning dirt, making improvements by March. Will the schoo- will the school be in operation while you're doing this? That's part of the phasing. Yes, it will be, uh... ... classrooms moved around internally and it'll be a juggling act. Right. But we will be doing all we can. Any trailers? Yes. We've seen th- we've, we've seen this dance before. Yeah. I wouldn't say or tell you anything different. Yeah. We plan on three portables. I see. But, uh, if everything works right and the weather holds during construction of next year, it'll go really smooth. Mr. Holmes? I was just gonna ask, have you, have you widened the lane, I guess, for that connection down at Martha Court? Um, I, yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Holmes. I'd like to clarify. That connection- Let's go. Let's go. ... exists. We're not making a connection. There is... Martha Court currently comes in and runs along the south property line, comes in by the employee parking, and then out through the loop. You can do that today. So we're not... All we're really doing is dividing. The, the parents that are coming in through Martha Court are dropping off at the front of the school, which is the same place the buses drop off, which is not preferred. We're now giving the parent drop-off in the back, bus drop-off in the front, so the buses and cars will never commingle. So that's it. Thank you for asking that. Any other questions? Mr. Cravens? Is, uh, Jennifer Court still connected there? Jennifer Court. What? This court. The other court there. You got a r- you got a little road going up to it. Uh, no, sir. That's not gonna- There's no connection there that I'm aware of. That, that it used to be connected there. Any o- I have a, I have a question for Ms. Wreckers. Um, do you know if the Bluegrass Trust would consider putting a plaque, um, as a part of the renovations? Because our fellow planning commissioner, Mike Cravens, attended school there. You certainly ask. And I think, I think that it should be commemorated and celebrated that, um, Yates has produced, um, you know, a Mr. Cravens. A commission member. Do you volunteer to ask them? Fifth and sixth grade are. I was gonna say H1, you know, or some kind of historic designation. But, uh... Uh huh. Is that the parts that's gonna be demolished? Yeah. Uh, Jennifer Court was closed after Mike left. Is what happened. No, m- my actual house was right there on, uh, Cantrell Drive. It's the L shape that backed up to... We had to ride the bus around there though. No connectivity. No. A- any, any other questions? We'll try to limit the statements, just the limit of the question. If not, thank both of you. Barb, what, uh, what do we need to do here now? Just make a recommendation either in f- favor of it or against it, or whatever. You don't, you can't put any conditions on it. So it's- Right. ... it's just free rein. I, I knew we couldn't condition on it. Free reign. All right. Any other discussion? The chair will entertain a motion. Find ways and compliance with the comprehensive plan. Right. Yeah. Thank you. So we got it right, Ms. Wreckers? Yes. Thank you. Got a motion and a second. Any dis- uh, any discussion? If not, let's vote. Thank you. Thank you, sir, very much. All right. We've got, what, Mr. King, one more meeting? One more item, the meetings filing schedule. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, you should have at your places, the draft schedule for next year. This schedule will keep your committees on the first Thursday, your subdivision and development planning items meeting on the second Thursday, work session on the third Thursday, and zoning items on the fourth Thursday. If there are fifth Thursdays, we'll see you back here for work sessions. We have a full year planned for you in 2010, but at this time, we would ask you to consider adoption of the meeting and filing schedule for next year. Thank you. Thank you. You've heard the, the, uh, staff recommendation for a meeting and filing schedule. We need to adopt this and then we can update our calendars if we can figure out how to read this. So... Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of the official meeting and filing schedule for 2010. Second. Second. All right. Vote on the motion. It's been accepted. Mr. Kings, is there anything else you want us? No further business, Mr. Chairman. Then we'll stand adjourned. All right. Forever. You can take my breath away. I can be your hero. I can kiss away the pain. And I will stand by you forever. You can take my breath away. You can take my breath away. I can be your hero. You can tell the world you never was my girl.