Are computers up and running? We all right? Okay. We have, uh, approval of minutes. Uh, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Mr. Owens? Mr. Chairman, uh, the board has recommendation on the back of page ... on the last page, page 10, to give, uh, Mr. Simpson some credit. Uh, his statement isn't written correctly. Uh, fifth, fifth line under Planning Commission of question- questions, uh, he states that the general theory, uh, from, I think I'm, uh ... No, I'm sorry, fourth line, he noted that the Turfland Mall is failing because it is generating any type, type of tax. I think that should read, "It is not generating any type of tax, tax." Um, other- otherwise, I'll move for approval with that amendment of February 11th minutes. Or correction, you mean. Correction, yes. Are there any other corrections to the, to the minutes? There's a second? Second. All those in favor of approving the minutes as corrected, please vote. Minutes are approved. Postponements and withdrawals? Mr. Keeley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Uh, Rory Keeley with EA Partners. Uh, the first item on your agenda is Plan 2010-13P. It's Fairway Lands Unit 11, request a one-month postponement. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to object to this postponement? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to postpone this. Um, Mr. Martin, do we have a date on that one month and ... April 8th. April 8. April 8th, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move, uh, postponement for one month to April 8th, uh, Plan 2010-13P Fairland Fairway Lands Unit 11. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Postponement to April- Thank you. ... 8th. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name's Matt Carter. I'm with Vision Engineering. If you would turn in your agenda to, uh, page two, under item Three Development Plans B, DP2010-8 Providence Place, Tract 3, Lots 4 and 5. Uh, I would request a one-month postponement to the April 8th hearing. Okay, you've heard the request. Is there anybody in the audience that wanna object to this postponement? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion to postpone Providence Place to DP2010-8 until April the 8th. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone DP2010-8 until April the 8th, 2010. Is there a second? Second. A second from Ms. Richardson. All those in favor, vote when it comes on the screen. Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, there are none from the audience. None from the audience. There is one that the staff is aware of. On page three, under Commission Items, Item A, Commission Consideration of a Resolution Regarding the World Equestrian Games. That has been on and off your docket for the last couple months and I'm, uh, here to report that it has been requested that this matter be withdrawn. Okay. Th- there's no action need to be taken on that, is there? Um, it wouldn't hurt to go ahead and just recognize and accept that withdrawal. All right. Is there a motion to accept, uh, the Commission Consideration of World Equestrian Games to accept this withdrawal? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, um, accept the withdrawal of the, uh, Commission Item A, Commission Consideration of a Resolution Regarding the World Equestrian Games. Okay, is there a second? Okay, the request for withdrawal has been made and seconded. When it comes on your screen, please vote. Okay, it's withdrawn. Thank you, Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martin, do we have any consent agenda items? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We have three plans on today's agenda, which will qualify as no discussion items on your consent agenda. The first item is on page two, item A. It is Plan 2010-14F, Marshall Property Unit 2K. And this is for property located at 3000 Leestown Road. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to object to the leaving that on the consent agenda? The second item is also on page two under Item Three, Development Plans. It is Development Plan 2010-7, Sayre Christian Village Phases 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. This is located out at 3816 Camelot Drive. It is a, an amendment to add off-street parking and buildable area and relocate an access point for the subject property. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to object to taking to, to leaving this on the consent agenda? Uh, Mr. Martin, is there anything else? The final item on your consent agenda is on page three, Item D. It is a Development Plan 2010-11, The Letterer Property, GCL Properties Amended. This is an amendment to revise dimensions for an addition and add a building envelope and floor area for a property located at 312 North Limestone Street. Uh, and I would add, Mr. Chairman, that these items were all reviewed and approved by your subdivision committee. Is, is there anybody that wants to take this one off the consent agenda? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wanna, uh, request a waiver. Okay, sir. Yes, ma'am, we'll do that then. We just have two items on the consent agenda. Is there anybody on the commission that wants to, uh, pull either one of these off of the consent agenda? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion that the two items that are left on the consent agenda be accepted. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda as stated with the two items. Is there a second? Second. Second by Mr. Craven. When you see it on the screen, we'll vote. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. We'll wait for the staff to present. Thank you, Tom. See if this one's cooled off. This one's not, this one's not. It's probably up there. Okay, Cheryl, whenever you're ready. Okay. Our next plan will be, will be on page three. It'll be at the top of page three. It's DP2010-9 Sharkey Property Unit 4, Section II. This is a final development plan for property, portion of property located at 1700 Leestown Road. This will be at the end of Louis Place and Hatterd Lane. Property is located, um, just south of Leestown Road and east of New Circle Road. We also have a 25, or yeah, 25-la- foot landscaping easement along the property to the south between the property and the adjacent property, which is owned by Lexington Fayette, Irwin County Government. And to the east, we have a 20-foot tree protection area, which, um, is between the property and the adjacent, which is Me- Menno Thorpe Shopping Center. The proposal for this plan is to pro- um, to put 120 apartments on the property. They have proposed 206 parking spaces. Out of those 206, they have 52 parking s- garages. Um, they only required 180, so they exceed that. The s- um, subdivision committee reviewed this plan and recommended referral for the plan. If you all would take the brown sheet, it has DP2010-9 for Sharkey. You've got this. On there, they have listed, um, the first seven conditions are sign-offs, and 8 through 13 are, um, corrections that need to be made to the plan. At the time, they r- recommended referral because of the discussion item number 13. Um, as of March 5th, we received a revised plan, which we have drawn up here, that, um, they had applied to the Board of Adjustments for a variance for the setback for Article 9. So des- um, discussion question number 13, we wanna change that to provide the Board of Adjustment Appeals, approves of a variance of Article 9. Um, we have one other. We have c- uh, condition number nine is provide the Planning Commission grants a waiver, which Tom's gonna present to you at this moment. Okay. Are there any questions for Cheryl before T- Tom presents? If not, Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, uh, as Cheryl told you, there is a waiver request. Uh, with this particular development plan, you have a report in front of you that details that request. The applicant is requesting a waiver of 6-8 that addresses the termination of streets. Uh, as you all are aware, streets have to terminate e- either as a connection to a street or in a cul-de-sac. In this particular instance, we have Hatterd Lane here and Louis Place here, and they intersect at right angles. They are requesting a waiver not to build a cul-de-sac, which would intrude into this area of the development. They are proposing to clearly delineate the, uh, uh, demarcation of this drive where it becomes private with the public right of way. The applicant has cited two circumstances, one being innovative design, the second being hardship. And if you review this site, you'll see there is a very short bit of frontage for public street. There is an extremely large detention basin. Uh, they have, uh, and a piece of developed property immediately adjacent to them that was previously approved by this body in this area. Um, as Cheryl mentioned, there is a landscaping utility buffer here, and there's conditional zoning in the rear, and so there are, there are significant st- site constraints, uh, for this property. And, uh, therefore, the construction of a cul-de-sac would have, staff feels, a negative impact on the property. Staff has recommended approval of the waiver. Uh, we have discussed it with fire, solid waste and engineering, and we believe that, uh, public services can be amply served. Uh, we also believe that the public, should they find themselves inadvertently on that property, uh, they can easily, uh, exit the property back out onto the public right of way. Uh, so for that reason, we believe that the waiver is consistent with the, the subdivision regulations intent to, uh, safeguard public health and safety. And, uh, with that, if there's any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin on the development plan? No? Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Petitioner? At the, uh, subdivision committee meeting, there was a lot of discussion about the, uh- Excuse me, Tony, you need to state your name for the record. Tony Barrett, with Barrett Partners. Thank you. Um, at the subdivision committee meeting there was some discussion about the, uh, uh, issue regarding, uh, item 13 there, relative to, uh, Article 9, frontage yards and, um, Miss Copeland asked me to prepare a, a rendering, uh, to kinda help, uh, explain that, I guess. But the, uh, so we've prepared a, uh, kind of a simple, uh, rendering, dressed it up a little bit with some trees. And, uh, following the subdivision committee meeting, we did file a Board of Adjustment request to, uh, for a variance to reduce the, uh, 40-foot s-, uh, frontage yard, uh, and the, there's some discrepancy, in my opinion, not in staff's opinion, but in the interpretation of, of that frontage yard, how it's defined. Um, I feel the, the apartment community that we've designed is, is pretty characteristic of about every other apartment community that's been built in Lexington, uh, in the time, 20 years I've been here. Uh, so I, I'm not really clear on, on, uh, on the interpretation of, of Article 9 in that particular section, so we've gone ahead and filed the, the Board of Adjustment and hopefully will be successful with that. Um, but in any event, uh, as I presented at the subdivision committee meeting, uh, we can meet the 40 foot as interpreted by planning commission, or by the planning staff, uh, but it, it has some subtle, um, disadvantages to the plan as I've laid it out, uh, with the Board of Adjustment request, uh, requirement. Uh, it would require shifting of the buildings a little bit further from the, uh, from the parking areas, um, and what that does, is although th- the site can accommodate that, it impedes into the, uh, the hiking trail, uh, it pushes the buildings a little bit too close to, um, for my, uh, uh, comfort level. It, it skews the symmetry of, of the, of the allay as you're coming down Louis Place. Uh, it kind of offsets the buildings and would be a little distracting to my, and, and hopefully, uh, other, uh, general public as well. It would just offset the buildings a little bit and as you're driving down there, you'd wonder, "Why didn't they just move the buildings 10, 15 feet to the left and it would have looked right?" Uh, so those are the details that, uh, you know, they're subtle on, from a, from a site planning perspective, but I think in the field they, they have a, a, a significant feel for, for the comfort level of living in, in the apartment community. So, uh, we've gone ahead, uh, at Dennis's, uh, request to, uh, kind of stick, stick to the plan, uh, and its symmetry and its setbacks relative to the, to the, uh, to the bike path or the, the, the trail system as it is, and we're hopeful that we'll be successful with Board of Adjustment. If we're not, we can just kind of skew things around and, and make it fit, but, uh, Dennis preferred to kind of take the extra step to make sure that, or try at least, to make sure that the, uh, that, that, that the plan worked, uh, as, as a whole. There's plenty of room, uh, to, to get the, uh, the sidewalks in and have a, a, a landscape, uh, feel around the buildings to kind of set 'em, uh, on the ground so that they're not, uh, floating, but, uh, uh, they're just a little bit closer than, uh, than staff, uh, is interpreting Article 9. So, uh, hopefully we've, we've addressed that and, uh, kind of wanna put the open space, uh, where it's more usable in the collected area in the, in the rear of the, of the property. Um, uh, appreciate the, uh, the recommended approval for the waiver, uh, for the cul-de-sac. I think that'll be a, uh, a, an improvement to having a large cul-de-sac design, uh, at this location, rather than, uh, just entering into the parking lot. There'll be separation by the, uh, private and public with a concrete, uh, at-grade, uh, band, uh, so there will be a clearer delineation as to ownership and maintenance in that regard, but it'll also just provide a little more seamless, uh, entrance into the apartment community. Uh, other than that, we're in agreement with, uh, with the staff. Um, I'm hopeful we'll be able to resolve the, uh, the open space, uh, using the retention basin in the open space, uh, calculations. We, uh, I think, uh, staff is, uh, is leaning, uh, to, to accepting the plan as it is, uh, with, with that regard. Uh- I don't know how much of the ... I'm way over in my open space statistically, but I ... I didn't break it down as to how much of it is in the retention basin, but as I presented at the subdivision committee meeting, uh, I feel the retention basin is open space. It's, it's, uh, it's a usable area for, uh, your pets. Uh, you can go exploring down there. Uh, you can seek it out. There's birds and wildlife in the retention basin, uh, so I think it's, it's a reasonable, uh, use for, uh, for the retention basin to be considered usable open space. Uh, with that, I, uh, just ask for your approval, and we're in agreement with the, uh, revised recommendations by the staff. Are there any questions? Are there any questions for Mr. Barry? Tony, I guess you, I guess you answered all the questions. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this? I guess not. Cheryl, I don't guess you have any rebuttal? No rebuttal. All righty. All right. If there's no, uh, if the petitioner has nothing else, then we will turn it over to the commission, and for any decisions they might or might not want to make. Mr. Cravens? I'd like to make a motion for approval of, uh, DP2010-9 Sharkey Property with the, uh, 13 conditions, revised conditions. You wanna- Do the waiver? You, you want to do the waiver? Mr. King, should we do the waiver at the same time, or do it separately? Usually do it by separate motions. That's what, that's what I thought. He, he's acting as our attorney today. All right, Mike, we'll, we'll take your motion, then we'll take the waiver. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ms. Richardson. Everybody that, uh, in discussion on the motion? If not, we'll you see on the screen, vote. All right. Mike, you wanna do the waiver real quick? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'll continue with the approval of the waiver for, uh, plan DP2010-9, Sharkey Property. Second by Ms. Richardson. Any discussion? If not, we'll vote when you see it on the screen. Waiver's granted. Thank you. Chris, whenever you're ready. Okay. The next item on the agenda is on page three. It's item D, DP2010-11, the Lederer Property, GCL Properties amended. It is a final development plan, amended, for property located at 312 North Limestone Street. Property is located off, this is North Lime, this is 3rd Street, with Lake Alley behind it. The purpose of this amendment is to add roughly 1800 square feet that was not listed on the previous plan that was just shown to you all a couple of months ago. Um, the difference, I believe, is in the site statistics primarily from what was shown to you previously. They indicate 10,184 square feet addition. Previous plan was roughly 8, 8000 square foot addition to the rear of the existing Carrick House. There's existing access, a loop drive off of North Limestone, as well as an entrance and exit off of Lake Alley in this area. The amendment also does add a building envelope, which, as you'll see on your agenda, one of the conditions related to that building envelope was the conflict with the tree protection area that was, that was previously denoted on their previously amended development plan. Uh, the staff, the subdivision committee did recommend approval, uh, to this plan, subject to the nine conditions, as shown on your agenda. Uh, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer those for you. Any questions for Chris? If not, thank you, Chris. Petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Rena Wiseman for GCL Properties. We're in agreement with the conditions, but we are requesting review by the, waiver of the condition requiring review by the technical committee. This is essentially the same plan you saw a few months ago. ... uh, as Chris says, there were dis- there was a discrepancy in the square footage from the f- between the footprint and what was listed in the site statistics. Uh, the footprint was the size that was approved by the Board of Architectural Review, 10,184 square feet, but the site statistics listed it as 8,000 something. It was not discovered until we had s- applied for a building permit. And so, we came back to correct this, so, uh, since the plan has been reviewed and we're not changing any other aspect but that, we would like to waive that, uh, review 'cause we are in the process of trying to get the building permit issued for the addition, and this is one of the last steps we have to accomplish before doing that, so we'd prefer not to have another two-week delay in the permitting process. Other than that, we're in agreement with the conditions and we can answer any questions that you have. Any questions for Ms. Wiseman? Ms. Copeland. Where does that leave the sacred tree that's up there in the U-shaped area? If we don't have technical review, what assurance that, is it, that that tree, that the building line isn't going to ... No, the one, that one. That the building line isn't going to move down and encroach on that tree? 'Cause we can't move it without coming back to you. You're talking about the envelope. But I thought the envelope, the black dash line, is ... This is to, i- it, Roger, we've actually did, I think he, I don't know if this is the right plan. Roger has adjusted that envelope to be clear of the tree. I don't know if this is the revised plan that he's prepared or not, but we have- I was just gonna add, that, that condition's, would remain independent- Yeah. ... of the review by tech- Yeah, we've, we have fixed that. Okay. Yeah. It would still be a condition of their approval. To revise that building envelope. Mr. Lightenberg, you got anything you wanna add to that? No, sir. Okay. All right. Any other questions for him? Mr. Holmes? Yeah, I was gonna ask staff about the issue of the waiver hav- going back and forth, technical committee, I mean, have you guys resolved that or is it your contention that it goes back to the technical committee? Standard, the standard procedure for lay plans is that they go back to technical r-review committee, uh, this is a relatively minor amendment to the plan, uh, that was recently before this body. We have spoken with engineering, uh, regarding retent- uh, detention and, and issues like that on this plan and, uh, my understanding is that engineering doesn't feel a need to see the plan again in front of technical committee. Uh, they can elaborate further if need be, uh, but that is our indication from them. Um, we're okay with however the commission decides. Okay. Wow. Okay. That, that answers my question. Any other questions for Chris or for Ms. Wiseman? I don't think there's anybody in the audience to comment on this, so ... I guess I'll skip that step. Yeah. Okay. I- if there's no further questions then we'll turn this over to the commission. Y- did you have any rebuttal, Chris? I assume you don't either, Ms. Wiseman? No. All right. We'll turn it over to the commission then for their consideration, deliberation and motion. Ms. Whitman. Um, yes, I'd like to move approval of DP2010-11 with the eight, uh, conditions, uh, recommended, uh, of- 12. ... and deleting number nine. Second. Second. Uh, point of information, Ms. Whitman. D- don't we have 12? Sh- delete? What's ... No. This one. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on row nine to, oh, I've got you. I'm on the wrong one. All right. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Is there a second to her motion? Second by Ms. Richardson. Any discussion on Ms. Whitman's motion? If not, vote when you see it. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So ... We, uh, you'll notice at your, at your desk you have a memorandum on the, uh, bonds. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept the, uh, call and release of bonds in the memo dated, uh, March 11th from Ron St. Clair to Chris King. Okay. You've heard the motion to accept the call and release of bonds, is there a second? Somebody second. Second. All right. Motion been made and second. All those in favor, vote when you see it on the screen. Motion carries. All right. We're gonna ... If you'll look in, at your desk, you'll see we have three public facil- public facilities re- reviews and Ms. Rikers will take us through those. Good afternoon. I will try to make these as short and sweet as possible. Um, I don't see anybody here from Fayette County Public Schools that will be able to answer any questions, so I'll answer as many questions as, as possible. That's- Um, we do have three public facility reviews today, and they are all listed under commission items and they're all from the Fayette County Public Schools. One is for a new school construction that would be Keith Shire Elementary, that's PFR2010-1. One is for a new concept that Fayette County Public Schools is going to do. It's an agriscience learning center that will be out on Leestown Road. That's PFR2010-2. And then we have Tates Creek Middle School renovation, which is PFR2010-3. The first one that we'll go through is, is Keithshire Elementary. And I've got a letter from Council Member McCord that I would like to circulate to you. Um, he was not able to make the meeting today and he would like, um, items to be discussed. And since the public schools' representative is not here, I'm not sure how much discussion can be done, but he would like this taken into consideration. Okay, Keithshire Elementary is proposed to be built on, uh, Keithshire Way. It's 3280 Keithshire Way. It's this property right here. This is Keithshire Way. Nicholasville Road and, um, Frant Mall and Meijer are all up generally in this area up here. Clays Mill Road is down towards this side. This is a 14-acre vacant property right now. It's zoned R-1C. The surrounding zoning is all residential and most of the uses are residential, um, on three sides. And then this side right here, this property right here is the Lexington Christian Academy. They're, um, planning to do 72,000 square feet of new construction for a 650 student capacity. They wanna do 26 classrooms, two to four preschool classrooms, art, music, and computer rooms, administrative areas, a gym, a cat- cafeteria, and a kitchen, and then they're also proposing 150 parking spaces on site. It will be an ENERGY STAR building, meaning that the materials and the products and the construction all have to meet a certain degree of energy efficiency, a level of energy efficiency. And that right now is required by KRS for public schools and other public buildings. There's no known real opposition to this, but there's a lot of concern that has been expressed by Mr. McCord and by, um, neighbors in the area, and as well as the LFUCG traffic engineer. Um, that is regard- with regard to traffic management in the area. As you know, that there are several schools out in, out that way, public schools and private schools. Fayette Mall is there, Meijer is there, and a lot of residential that is still developing. So they're concerned about the traffic and the lack of roadway improvements. Um, currently, the way it's designed, Keithshire goes along here, and what they have proposed is just traffic coming here. For the general traffic, they would have to make a U-turn around the median and come back here and do a right in and then make a right out. This is a general public access right here. This is the bus loop right here. Buses will be able to access the property coming from this direction or this direction. But there is no, no storage lane for the, for the buses to line up and to get into the property. And with the traffic that's there now, it's, it's already a bad situation. And traffic engineering is recommending that there be a storage lane here and that there be a left turn lane dedicated right here so that people can get in coming from this way without having to go all the way around the median. That is a major concern. It has the potential to really affect traffic in the, in the area. And that's basically what Mr. McCord's letter is addressing. Um, the letter, there was a letter sent from Mr. Neal in traffic engineering to Fayette County Public Schools citing these concerns. And a letter was received back from Mr. Wallace from Fayette County Public Schools saying that he agreed with what Mr. Neal was saying, and he agreed that there are concerns there and there are issues there that should be addressed. But Fayette County Public Schools can't use public school funds to pay for off-site improvements. That's part of the Kentucky Constitution, and it was upheld by a Kentucky adj- at- Attorney General opinion, a written opinion. So they're bound by that. And so right now, we're kind of at a standstill as to how these improvements, because we know they're needed, how they're gonna be done. And there have been discussions between the Irving County government all the way up to the mayor's office and Fayette County Public Schools with regard to this. So far, nothing's been resolved. Um, we have hopefully sug- we've suggested that they do a revision of the layout of the property to hopefully move the ba- building back so that it'll allow for more bus storage on the property. And that might help to mitigate the traffic situation until the roadway improvements can be made. But we don't know if that's, that's acceptable or not. We haven't heard anything back from that. But hopefully that would be one at least temporary solution until, until they can get the roadway improvements done. Um, there was not- noted in a meeting that Mr. McCord referenced in this letter that the layout of the school and the layout of the property is pretty much identical to Athens-Childersburg Elementary School. And two years after the school was occupied, they had to add more bus storage capacity on the property. And so we're hoping that if they can rearrange the property and add more storage for the buses internal to the property or more space for it, that that will be a proactive rather than a reactive situation to the, to the traffic issues th- that they're experiencing or that they will experience. Um, with regard to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, there are several goals and objectives that relate to these issues. It's not, they're not either in opposition or in support, but they do relate to these issues. And those are listed from the bottom of page three to the top of page four of your report. And then the, there are also several that are directly in support, as with any school construction or renovation. And those are listed on pages two and three of your staff report. And then the community facilities chapter obviously supports the construction of the school. Land use element of the Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for public education, and it has since 1996. So even with the support of the comprehensive plan and the compliance with the comprehensive plan, these issues need to be addressed and we're hoping that they can be addressed before the construction of the school, rather than, rather than after. You know, if they can rearrange the layout of the property, hopefully they can do that before the school is actually constructed. They want it occupied by December of 2011, or the year 2011. I think it's probably August of 2011. Um, other than that, we recommend approval with the recommendation that they get any permits that they need from engineering and/or building inspection and that they continue to con- carry on conversation with the Irvin County government, as far as making the roadway improvements so that that can be, that can be taken care of. Um, another recommendation is, is that, um, they red- consider redesign of the property so that, you know, at least as temporary mitigation for the, for the r- road problems that they're gonna have, that all of Lexington is going to experience in this area. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. A- any other questions for Ms. Riker on this? I've got one. Mr. Holmes? Mm-hmm. Yes. Ahem, I, I guess, I have a question and some concerns. Obviously, with Mr. Mc- McCord's letter stating the issue and then doing your comments about the, um, the negative traffic impact that it could possibly have based on the design, and the fact that no one from the school has even came to, to answer those questions causing me some concern. And, uh, I know we have very limited oversight on this, but I just, I hate to see us approve something that's going to create the potential of some negative traffic impacts as we've heard from the council person. You're not exactly approving or disapproving- You're, you're reviewing it. ... the, the request. You're, you're making a recommendation that ... I mean, you can make a recommendation that they do things to address these issues, make that as your par- part of your recommendation. You're not really approving or disapproving of the school site because we don't have the authority to do that. Okay. So, but I, I guess I still have some concerns knowing what's here before us. Uh, so are you saying we can only recommend that they make recommendations? That they, that they- They consider- ... can s- continue discussion with the Irvin County government with regard to the roadway issues, that they consider, you know, redesigning the property so that it'll help, you know, help to mitigate the traffic situation. Um, that's all you are is an advisory capacity. It, it's not something that we can recommend- Yeah. ... approval or disapproval. Now, I guess I always wondered why do we have to even review these in our limited- It's required by Kentucky revised statutes. I might comment that you do, you do have, and the way you do have to speak on these issues is you have a certain amount of time to make a comment as to whether you v- feel it agrees or does not agree with the comprehensive plan. That is the scope of your review. You don't get to re-approve the site plan. So your best opportunity to send a message is to comment in terms of the things that you feel might need to be done in order to make this agree with the comprehensive plan is what I would suggest. Yeah. Because when I look at the comprehensive plan- And you don't necessarily have to use the term approval if you're uncomfortable with that. Right. Because I, I know there's, there's a section in the comprehensive plan talk about traffic flow and disruption. Mm-hmm. And so wh- when, when I look at this, I mean, I think it, it goes against some of the objections that we have in the comprehensive plan. And I think that's a strong statement to make and I think everybody understands that this is an issue that has to be addressed. The issue of course, is funding, um, but that is being discussed and will continue to be pursued. And I do think it's important and staff's clearly agrees with, with the commission that this is important and feels that you could, uh, you could add your voice to that. Any other discussion, questions? Mr. Neal's here, if you need to ask him about that. He's sitting in the back of the room. Mr. Owens? Uh, Barbara, as far as, you know, I think there is a traffic issue here that, that needs to be addressed and they need to continue looking at. I'm curious as far as water runoff, stormwater quality and so forth. Uh, is this 72,000 square feet of new construction? Yes. Yes. And there is a large detention basin right there and I have suggested to them that they discuss with engineering, be sure that that is adequate to- And, yeah- ... an adequate capacity for- ... understand that. ... the property. Is that been expanded? Do, do, do we know the detention basin? I don't have any personal knowledge of that, but engineering may be able to answer that. Okay. Uh, uh, yeah, I'm just curious because 72,000 square feet and I'm sure 'cause that's going to relate to more asphalt as well and on 14 acres, you know, it, it's something that should be addressed as well, if it's not already. I'm sure it probably is, but- Yeah, I advise you they should discuss it with engineering. ... this day and age, I think special consideration should be given to that. Right. Any other questions for Ms. Riker? If not, then Ms. Riker, uh, I guess the best thing to do is to just, uh, note these concerns or do you want to put them in the form of a motion for approval or- Yeah. I would say note that concerns, strongly note that concerns. Okay. Ms. Phillips? Um, Mr. Chairman, I would, um, like to state that, uh, with respect to PFR2010-1 for the Keithshire Elementary School construction, that the commission, uh, finds most of the, uh, proposed, uh, school construction to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan, with the exception of, uh, compliance with, uh, would be goal 20, um- ... number two, objective E, as well as goal number two, objective G, um, with, um, attention to, uh, enhancing, um, transportation movement, traffic movement within that area. And, uh, that the school board consider, uh, trying to become in better compliance with the goals and objectives of our comp plan. Okay. You've heard Ms. Phillips' motion. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor, vote when you see it on the screen. Motion carries. Thank you, Ms. Riker. Thank you. The next one, PFR 2010-2, which is the Locust Trace- Thank you. Locust Trace Agriscience Learning Center, um, is located at 3591 Leestown Road. It's an 82-acre vacant parcel that was formerly part of the Federal Corrections Institute. This is the property right here, and there is a 10-acre area that is down in this corner that will be a future site of a fire station. But right now, it's all this, all of this property right here. Corrections Institute is over here. To the north and west, there's agricultural use and zoning, and then all along here, there is agricultural zoning, and it's, it's basically, um, agricultural and commercial uses. What they would like to do is construct a, a 45,000 acre ... or 45,000 acre, 45,000 square foot classroom building that will contain administrative space, a media center, classrooms with a related workshop area, vet clinic, greenhouses, and all related support spaces. A 20,000 plus or minus square foot arena building, which will include a teaching arena, 12 large animal stalls, a wash stall, a tool shed, and equipment rooms, and then miscellaneous outbuildings that will be a small livestock bar and a hay shed and sheds that will contain equipment and tools. It will have paddocks around here. This is the fire station site, but the paddocks will be around li- around here, and then the building will be central to the property. There will be an access easement that comes up through here that will be shared by the fire station and, and the school. This is gonna serve Fayette County students, Woodford County students, and Scott and Jessamine County students, which is, which is unusual. It's a, it's a very interesting program. They'll have half-day sessions. There'll be 125 students there per session, so there'll be 250 students there per day. And then the staff that'll be on site are listed on the ... They're all listed on the first page of your staff report. They're gonna have administrative staff, media center administrator, classroom resource and vo-tech lab teachers, a custodial person and a farm manager, and then they hope to have a vet on site during the week in both a learning capacity and to operate a veterinary clinic on, on the property. Okay. The purpose is to provide these students from the four different counties with real worl- real world hands-on experience as far as the, um, ag industry and green technologies. They're gonna learn green technologies that can be applied to the agricultural industry as well as, as a- well as other fields. This is in direct support of goal four, objective H, as it relates to cooperation and communication throughout the Bluegrass Region with regard to environmental protection and land protection. The students have been involved from the beginning of the project, from the planning stage up through soils testing so that they can come out with a good layout for the property. They'll be continuing to be involved up to the construction phase, and one aspect of this is that they're doing weather system analysis so that they can integrate wind and solar energy into this and other green technologies that they can use as part of the development. The land right now is virgin land, and so that gives them the opportunity to address various methods of waste disposal without taxing the, um, existing public works system. What they're thinking about doing is using bio digesters so that they can turn plant and animal waste into sources of energy. This project is supported by several goals and objectives, and those are listed from the bottom of page two to the top of page four in your staff report. The vision statement of the comprehensive plan, three of the eight themes of the vision statement app- are applicable to this, and those are listed on page four. And then the community facilities chapter and the environmental and green infrastructure chapter are both in support of this. The land use element of the comprehensive plan recommends this property for CARL, which is Core Agricultural and Rural Land Use, and that is land characterized by, um, agricultural use. This is a school for academic instruction, so it's not strictly an agricultural use, but it's not strictly an urban use either. It fits in. I mean, both of those go hand in hand as far as this project is concerned. The entire development will be LEED certified, and it will embody concepts and themes in the environmental and green infrastructure chapter of the comprehensive plan. And another way that it'll support that chapter is how it relates to the statement regarding public and private partnerships and how that improves chances of successfully implementing green infrastructure programs. There will be an advisory council formed that will consist of government officials, education administrators, UK personnel, and members of the community who will develop the, the content and the curricular studies, the programming to help the students transition from this environment, the high school environment to college or the workforce, either way. And then there's a statement by Fayette County Public Schools that describes this partnership. It says, "The partners' guidance will keep the program current with industry standards, financial support, and job career opportunities for students, as well as links to other educational opportunities." And then there's a statement in the comprehensive plan green infrastructure chapter that states, "Education is imperative for gaining support of green infrastructure initiatives and movement towards a sustainable community," and those two things go hand in hand. So, as far as its relationship to the comprehensive plan, to summarize this, although it's recommended for CARL and not public education, the way properties usually are for the -- for the school system, this is in compliance with the goals and objectives of the plan, the vision statement, and the text of the comprehensive plan, both the Community Facilities chapter and the Green Infrastructure chapter. And it's not -- it's not in disagreement with the CARL, but it's not totally in agreement with the CARL recommendation. And we recommend approval of this with the only stipulation that they obtain all permits from either building inspection or engineering as far as grading, construction, whatever, the health department, as far as their septic system. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. Any questions for Ms. Rikers? If -- if not, I'd like to comment on this just a minute. Uh, this is something that's been thought about, talked about for 20 years in Fayette County. We lost vocational agriculture over 25 years ago, maybe 30 years ago in Fayette County. And with the -- with the vision of -- of our su- school superintendent, and with a lot of work from three different counties, or four different counties, this is a project that we were told would never happen. And now it gives us an opportunity, not only in the ag community, but in the, uh, the general community to -- to -- for kids in high school to be able to decide whether they wanna get involved in these kind of things and have an opportunity to learn as they go. Uh, it's -- it's a one-of-a-kind project, and it's one of those type of things that I truly never thought I'd see happen. Yeah, I would love to have had this when I was in school, but you know. Oh, it's extremely exciting. I mean, the possibilities of what kids will be able to do with this is just amazing. And the partnership with the other counties is what makes it unique, because we are able to use the facilities to their maximum capacity. And, uh, those of you that haven't read this, I would encourage you to read it, because it's a -- it's a vision that the agriculture and science community and the high schools have had for a long, long time. I think it's a great program. Okay, the last one is PFR2010-3, and it's for renovation of Tates Creek- Uh, Ms. Rikers- ... Middle- Do you -- do you wanna approve this- Oh, I'm sorry, yes, yes, yes. Please. ... before we go to the next one? Excuse me. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chairman, uh, equally being excited about this, I'll move that this is in compliance with, I'll say, PR -- PFR2010-2, the Locust Trace Ag Science Farm Learning Center is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And as mentioned, equally excited about seeing this go forward. Second. That includes Mr. May. Mr. Owens, you wanna note the staff recommendation about th- that- About, with the staff recommendation for approval. Yes. Okay. All right. Motion seconded by whom? By Ms. Richardson. Vote when you see it on the screen. Thank you. Now moving on. Thank you. I'm not used to having so many of 'em at one time. Okay, this last one is Tates Creek Middle School renovation, and it is item D on your agenda. It's PFR2010-3. The property's located at 1105 Center Parkway. This is the property right here. Actually, it goes around like, like this, because this is the Gainesway Park right here. We should ... We've got Center Parkway comes around all the way, makes kind of a ring road around the property. It connects Pimlico Parkway to Green Tree Road, which is an extension of Shinnaway Road. The school property is actually 64 acres. It's a campus that contains the middle school, which is right here, elementary school, which is right here, and the high school, which is right there. We've got Gainesway Park right here, and then there's a little commercial area right here that's zoned B-1. The rest of the zoning is residential, but this property is zoned B-1. That's where the Gainesway Police sector is located, in that little area right there. The middle school contains 92,000 square feet. It was built in 1962, and then they added onto it in 1974 and 1988. Okay. And in addition to the renovation that they're doing, they're also gonna add 16,000 square feet to the main and the lower floors. And this renovation and addition is part of their overall plan to bring all of their facilities up to the standards of state of the art, and then to apply towards their goal of being a world-class school system by the year 2020. They're ready to be underway with construction. This is the site plan, and you really can't tell, it's really difficult to tell what is, even on the, on the large drawing, it's difficult to tell what is existing, what's new construction, what's demolition, whatever. But these are the site improvements that they're making to the access and to the cir- internal circulation on the property. They're gonna do internal renovations. They're gonna do renovations to the electrical systems, their physical plant system, which is the electrical and the fire and all of that kind of thing, other internal improvements. And then, as I said, the site improvements will be improved access and - and vehicular circulation. And then they're gonna add 16,000 square feet of new construction, which will consist of administrative area, a vestibule and lobby, a gym, a media center, and classrooms. They propose to do this in six phases. It'll begin in June of this year and end in December of 2011, and then the school will be occupied during the course of the work. As it relates to the comprehensive plan, the property is recommended for public education, and that is realizing its, or recognizing its existence as a school system, or as part of the school system. And then, it's a desire for it to remain that way. And then there are five goals and objectives of those five goals, and then objectives of two more that support this, and those are listed on pages two to three of the staff report. The Community Facilities chapter also supports this. The renovation of this and the other schools is ongoing, and all of the ones that we've reviewed so far are still working on their renovation. ... and new construction. It's a big part of their providing safe, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing state-of-the-art facilities for their students. And that's in an effort to help maximize their intellectual potential. This complies with and supports and is supported by several elements of the comprehensive plan. And we're recommending approval of this and that, again, that any and all applicable permits be obtained from, from building inspection prior to this, to the start of any, any of the demolition or construction. And if you have any questions about this one, I'll be glad to try to answer them. Any questions, Ms. Rikers? Ms., Ms. Copeland? Um, did you say they're going up? No. So- It's ... They don't ... I think they only have one floor and then a basement, and so they're, they're adding onto that, um- So they're gonna increase the s- Square footage by 16,000 square feet. Is that ... But they're gonna increase the hard surface area? The property, I think, is probably all paved anyway. Yeah. And so they're just gonna increase the, the square footage of the school. Okay. Because there's- It's not adding any, any impervious- There's flooding out there. Pardon? There is flooding out there. It's not gonna add to any of the impervious area because it's already paved, but, um, it's just adding on to the school. Any other questions for Ms. Rikers? No. I'll talk to you about that. If there's no other questions for Ms. Rikers, can we, uh, have a approval or that it does support the comp plan? We need a motion. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, um, I move, uh, approval PF, uh, PFR2010-3, uh, as presented by the staff, uh, that this, uh, is in, i- is in, uh, compliance with the comprehensive plan. And support the staff re- And the re- with the staff recommendation. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. Is there a second? Second. Second in ... When you see it on the screen, please vote. Passes. Thank you, Ms. Rikers. Okay, thank you. Mr. King, have you got something that ... I think y'all probably oughta pay attention to this announcement. Mr. Chairman and commission members, we do have one more action item that we would like you to take, and that is item E on page four, and that is the cancellation of your scheduled zoning hearing two weeks from today since- Oh, my god. The quickest motion we've had in 30 years. That's the fastest one. First motion you've ever made that. What we have to do is, is approve, i- is move to change our, our, uh, published meeting dates. The meeting and filing schedules- Yeah, the meeting and filing schedules. We had no new zoning applications filed, and therefore there is nothing to be heard at that meeting. Yeah. Th- the chair will need a motion for that. It'll be extremely, uh, surprised if there's not unanimous vote on this, but, uh- Moved by Mr. Walker. Second. Seconded. All those in favor of, of amending the filing and meeting dates, say, "I," or, or move on the screen. Excuse me. It comes forward. I distinctively see the control room. M- m- mister ... Mr. Paulson, you have a nice meeting on the 25th. Yes, sir. Yeah. And Mr., Mr., uh, King, you wanna talk about a staff item or who's gonna do that? The tr- I'm sorry. The training session? Training opportunity? Training session, right. I wanted to mention that, uh, just one information item, that, uh, there is a training opportunity next Wednesday, March 17th. We have another one of our American Planning Association audio conferences, um, in our offices beginning at 4:00. The topic this time is redevelopment and revitalization for a new era. That will count towards 1.5 hours of your training requirements. And anyone out there that is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, it is also counts for certification maintenance requirements for that as well. And since it's St. Patrick's Day, we'll have green snacks. Green snacks. Yes, sir. Green snacks. It doesn't mean old. This means green. Is that right? All right. That you do, do identify. Is there anything else we need to talk about? Any commission items? Have to deal with that. Okay. I don't know. T- hold on just a second. I need to decide what I'm gonna do with this. I just got it. I'll be happy to point you in the right way. Mm-hmm. I, I think this can wait. We'll, we'll, we'll discuss this a little bit and decide what to do with it. All right, is there any other thing need to come before us? Mr. King, is that all you have? Just also remind you, you do have a work session next week in this room at 1:30 PM. Is there anything you wanna announce we're gonna talk about or you wanna ... Uh, at this point, we know we'll be continuing the conversation on housing market studies. Our intent to have some more information discussion on that from your last time. And, uh, th- uh, that's the only thing we have at this particular point in time, but there may be other things that, uh, depending on events, that we may bring forward to you. Being as Mr. Paulson's home gonna be on the 25th, the rest of us oughta make an effort to be here 'cause we wanna- ... we wanna learn as much as we can about this. We'll stand adjourned. Thank you. Sorry. It's okay. Well, I mean- Mother's gone and baby don't make it hell. Ain't going down til the sun comes up. I ain't giving in til they get enough. Go around the world-