Don't get me wrong If I'm acting so distracted I'm thinking about the fireworks Echo of when you smile Don't get me wrong If I speak like light and fire I'm only off to wander Because I'm wounded now Once in a while Two people meet Soon they live for no reason They just pass on the street Suddenly thunder Showers everywhere Who can explain The thunder and rain That there's something in the air Don't get me wrong If I come and go like fashion I might be great tomorrow But hopeless yesterday Don't get me wrong If I fall in the mode of fashion It might be unbelievable But let's not say so long It might just be fantastic Don't get me wrong He was a hard-headed man He was brutally handsome She was terminally pretty She held him up and he held up the ransom For the poor go-to He had a nasty reputation as a cruel dude They said he was ruthless, they said he was cruel They had one thing in common, they were good in vain She said, faster, faster, the lights are turning red Life in the fast lane Show it makes you lose your mind Life in the fast lane Are you waiting so far? Even for action Hard for the game The common attraction The top of the name They knew all the right people They took all the right bills They threw out rangers' parties They paid every bill There were lines on the mirror Lines on her face She pretended not to notice She was caught up in the race Out every evening Until it was light She was too tired to make it She was too tired to fight her body I've been the fast lane Surely make you lose your mind I've been the best thing I've been the best thing Everything, all the time I've been the best thing Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh We've been up and down this highway Haven't seen a goddamn thing He said, call the doctor I think I'm gonna crash The doctor say he's coming But you've got to pay him cash They were rushing down that freeway Messed around and got lost They didn't care They were just dying to get off And it was I've been the fast lane Show to make you lose your mind I've been the fast lane I've been the fast lane All the time I've been the fast lane I've been the fast lane I've been the fast lane Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo If everyone can take their seats, we'll get started. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will call this meeting of November 8th to order. And to my knowledge, we have no minutes to be approved, so we'll move to any postponements or withdrawals from the agenda. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 4, item C, DP 2012-89, New Market Property Phase 1, Unit 10. and we're requesting a one-month postponement of that. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Any commission members? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move your postponement. Thank you. Mr. Salley, what date is that? Mr. Chairman, you have one meeting in December due to the holidays. It's December the 13th. I think you told me that 15 minutes ago. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement, so please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chair, on the last page of the agenda, page 6, item B, under commission items, CT 2012-1. We're requesting a postponement until December 13th. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Mr. Chairman, we would just note we passed out a memorandum to the Commission members on this request. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any Commission member wish to speak in regards to this request? If not, I'll entertain a motion for a postponement. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of CT 2012-1. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Any others? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I may direct your attention to page 4 of your agenda, Item E, DP 2012-91, Michael Gentry, DVM Property, Lot 2, amended. This is property located at 101 Sand Lake Drive. We have received an email request from the applicant's engineer to postpone that plan for one month. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request? Any commission member? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman Yes Move postponement of DP 2012-91 for one month Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until December 13, 2012 Please vote when it comes up on your screen Motion passes Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none I believe we'll move to the consent agenda items. And let Mr. Salley walk us through those. Gladly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm glad to tell you that most of the remaining items on your agenda today do appear on the consent agenda. The very first item on your consent agenda is the third item on your meeting agenda. This is Plan 2012-114P, a preliminary subdivision plan for the Huffham property located at 1100 Alexandria Drive. This plan has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. All three final record plats that appear in your agenda are also on the consent agenda this afternoon. First appears on page 2. It's Item A, Plan 2012-103F, an amended final plat for Fuller et al. and Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, Unit 1. This is for property located at 1315 and 1317 West Main Street. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2012-115F, the Mayhem Property, Unit 1B, Section 2. This involves property at 441 through 449 Madison Point Drive. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda on page 3, item C, Plan 2012-116F, the Sharkey Property Unit 3, Section 4, involving property at 1700 Leavstown Road. There are also several development plans that appear on your consent agenda. The first is on page 3, item B of your meeting agenda. DP 2012-88, the Clark Property Unit 3, for a portion of 1551 Deerhaven Lane. I would point out to the Commission that the staff has prepared an EAMP compliance report to you on this plan. Also, the staff has received an affidavit regarding the signed harvesting that's necessary for this plan. The next item on your consent agenda is on page 4, item D, of your meeting agenda. This is DP 2012-90, Preston Avenue Subdivision, also the Erica L. Strecker property, located at 609 through 613 West 3rd Street, and also involving 256 Newtown Pike. Likewise, the staff has prepared information to you as this is an adaptive reuse project. However, the staff has not yet seen the required affidavit for the signposting of this property. This would be required before this item could be considered on your consent agenda. Next on your consent agenda is an item on page 5, item F of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-92, the Bellawood Shopping Center, also known as the Tates Creek Shopping Center. This is an amended final plan for one of the outlaws located at 4191 Tates Creek Center Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. Page 5, item G, DP 2012-96, Harrods Hills Estate, Unit 2H, Section 1 for Unit No. 76. This involves property located at 3475 Line Drive. And the final item on your consent agenda appears on page 5, item H of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-97, a final development plan for the Chesapeake Equine property located at 1024 Greendale Road. As I was reviewing the final items in your consent agenda, we do have an affidavit from Ms. Strecker about the signposting. dated the 31st of October of this year. So we do have the affidavit for the signed posting involving that property. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Planning Commission can consider all of the items listed on your consent agenda unless a member of the Commission or a member of the audience or one of the applicants would ask to remove one of these items for further consideration and discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience wish to hear one of these items? Any commission member? Yes, Mr. Penn. I'd like to remove DP 2012-96 from the consent agenda. Herod Hills? No, Chesapeake. Chesapeake. DP 2012-97. Seven, you're right. Excuse me. Anyone else wish to hear any of these items? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion for the consent agenda removing Chesapeake Equine DP 2012-97. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda eliminating DP 2012-97 from the consent agenda. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda without Chesapeake Equine being on it. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. I believe our first item is on page one, down at the bottom of the page, under Preliminary Subdivision Plans. It's Plan 2012-101P, Tuscany, Unit 8. I believe before you do have staff exhibits as well with some revised conditions. And I think Chris or someone, Chris, Taylor, are you going to do this? Yes? Oh, Bill. I'm sorry. Mr. Sally is going to walk us through this. If you well know, there could be a waiver on this as well. We've got a waiver. Mr. Salley. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Again, this is the very first item on your agenda this afternoon. It is Plan 2012-101P, a preliminary subdivision plan involving property known as Tuscany Unit 8. This property has an address being a portion of 1970 Winchester Road. We have passed out to you a number of staff exhibits, including additional conditions, revising condition number nine that appears in your agenda and adding two additional conditions. As the staff prepared our presentation for you this week on this plan, we discovered that a waiver is necessary technically for this plan, and that is part of the reason I'll be walking you through our presentation on this item. A rendered copy of the plan is to my right, and I will present that to you in just a few minutes. but first I'd like to orient you to the location of this property since the area bounded by this plan has very little street frontage and is somewhat inaccessible just for that reason. Using the... This is looking at the 2007 comprehensive plan, and really to identify the location of the subject property, you need to orient to Winchester Road between New Circle Road and the interstate I-75 at this location. The preliminary subdivision plan that's before you is located at this location in a large area of Tuscany recommended for medium density residential use. Other roadways and landmarks in the area are Fortune Drive, which has a signalized intersection here at Winchester Road, and Patch and Wilkes Drive at this location which extends to both sides of Winchester Road, also with a signalized intersection. Patch and Wilkes is shown on the 2007 plan as a collector street that is proposed to extend into an extension of Trade Center Drive. Trade Center is built to this point and plan to extend further to the east. I have a couple of aerial photos to further orient you to the location of the property that is before you. and this is the intersection of Winchester Road, Patchen Wilkes Drive. Battery Street is here. Subject property is accessed via an extension of Battery Street and also an extension of Patchen Wilkes Drive. You see currently it's farmland, vacant land, and tree stands on the subject property. Here's another view of the area. This photo is about two years old, and as we show you some other photos of this area, you'll see that a lot has changed in the subdivision just to the north of this area. This preliminary subdivision plan involves about 25.5 acres and also is part of a proposal for 115 single-family residential lots. The property is zoned R3, as is the subdivision that does exist immediately to the north, which is known as the Summerfield subdivision, although originally it was approved as part of Tuscany, and so those plan names will continue on. Patchen Wilkes Drive is here. Its intersection with Winchester Road extends off the plan to the north, and as I mentioned, that is a signalized intersection. Battery Street currently stubs into the subject property at this location and is planned to extend to the south and the east. Patch and Wilkes Drive is also planned to extend a depth of one additional lot where it will tee into a local street that is proposed to have cul-de-sacs on each end. Battery Street would be the primary extension of the street system through the subject property. Otherwise, all the streets are local and cul-de-sac sections. This is a revised plan that was shown to your subdivision committee last week. It was submitted to us late in October. And some of the changes on this plan that some of you on the subdivision committee may recall from the previous month is this area is now proposed for lotting for single-family residential uses. The bounds of this unit has shifted slightly to the north and west here. and the street cross-sections are now proposed to be a 50-foot-wide right-of-way with 28-foot-wide streets, leaving 7-foot utility strips and a 4-foot sidewalk on each side. This plan also has a revised cross-section for Battery Street here. It is shown as a 62-foot wide street with 42 feet of pavement and 5.5-foot utility strips and 5-foot sidewalks from basically this point to the south and east. tree protection areas have been added to this plan as well they are highlighted in green there is a tree stand between the existing subdivision and this proposed unit and along this line as well there are intersperged tree stands also proposed at those locations on the rear of some of those proposed residential lots the existing conditions on the ground are very different from the photographs that we showed to start the presentation. And initially the staff thought this was a one-issue plan, that being this cross-section of Battery Street as it stubs into the subject property. That section is built, approved, and constructed as a 50-foot wide street with a 31-foot pavement width from curb to curb, five-and-a-half-foot utility strip, and a four-foot sidewalk. As the photos will show, these lots on either side have since developed and do have driveway access to that street. But the staff's primary concern is with the continuation of the Collector Street system through this unit. As we showed on the comprehensive plan, the Collector Street on the plan was shown to be an extension of Patch and Wilkes Drive. But primarily due to topographic reasons, this development plan seeks to end that collector street section at this location, leaving a row of lots to the topographic area where it does dip between what would be a logical extension of Trade Center Drive at this location. The staff did ask for, and the petitioner has brought, a concept of how these collector streets would be extended in the future so that the comprehensive plan recommendation can be met. What is on the overhead now is the language in the comprehensive plan about collector streets, and you will see this at page two of the staff exhibits as well. To help ensure adequate connections, the comprehensive plan does recommend collector streets. They illustrate approximate locations that will be refined during the development review process and be constructed as part of the development. That is, in essence, the decision for the Planning Commission today on this Collector Street extension and basically the difference between the location shown on the comprehensive plan and what the Commission is being asked to approve with this plan. I'd like to show you now the other photographs of the homes and the streets in this area. This is a two-year-old picture of Patch and Wilkes and Battery Street stubbing into the subject property. As I mentioned, this is a 31-foot wide street, four-foot sidewalks, five-and-a-half-foot utility strips there. The Collector Street runs side-to-side in the photograph. That is Patch and Wilkes Drive. and Battery Street extends off the photograph to the top, being an extension of that local street that has a cul-de-sac at its terminus. This is a view of Patch and Wilkes Drive, standing very near that intersection, looking back toward Winchester Road. You can see two years ago there were no houses in the photograph. Today there are more houses than there are vacant lots in this subdivision. And the day we went out and took this photo, there was a lot of construction activity ongoing. As I mentioned, this is a collector street. It is 62 feet wide from basically the back of sidewalk here across to the back of sidewalk on the other side, and basically 41, 42 feet, 41 feet back of curb to back of curb. It allows parking both sides, and clearly two vehicles can pass each other on that street. This is a view looking in the same direction just from the other side of the street. This is from the same location looking toward the south and west. This is in the direction of Trade Center Drive. This tower here, I believe, is a radio station tower on New Circle Road, so this is looking to the south and west. You can see this is still a Collector Street section from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk here. This is where it is proposed to extend one-lot depth and tee into a local street. This is a view of the Battery Street stub into the subject property. I mentioned earlier it's very difficult to see the subject property. You can see some of the trees on the property, but this is the stub street that exists. The difference is, from the photo, you now see there are homes on either of those two corner lots. And also of interest, there are garages and driveways to this local street. We want to focus now on the details of the cross section. As I mentioned, back of curb to back of curb is 31 feet. We have our 5 1⁄2-foot utility strips and a 4-foot sidewalk. Again, a view of the stub. I think the last photo is the other side of the street where we have a more finished appearance, sidewalk, utility strip. one of the street trees is in, and the curb at this location. I can walk you through some of the staff exhibits at this point. Staff Exhibit 3 really shows what we thought would be the one major plan issue with this plan. The petitioner is proposing to retain the 5031 cross section that exists on this stub street and assign it as no parking, meaning the curbing would remain, the driveways would remain, the 5 1⁄2-foot utility strip will remain, and then have a transition of about 200 to 300 feet into the full collector street cross-section. That is shown on Exhibit 3, and we've circled the cross-section at issue with the staff on page 3. Page 4 shows the details of that cross-section, again, with it highlighted for your review at 5031 feet. In looking at the subdivision regulations, the staff is concerned about this 31-foot wide width, being as it is to complete a collector system through the area that would allow collector street connections from an extension of Trade Center to Winchester Road. On page 5 of the staff exhibits, the minimum width of a collector street that we have in our regulations is 37 feet from curb to curb. and we've highlighted that for your review on page 5. Page 6 of the staff exhibits is the same photograph that you see on the overhead. The staff recommendation is that this cross-section be changed from its current 5031 to a 5037-foot section. That would be a very unusual section, but it would allow for the minimum pavement width of a collector street to be accomplished in this area. The drawing that's on the overhead would show, to scale, what that would mean. That would mean that the curbs would have to be removed and moved closer to the sidewalk. That would result in a utility strip of only 2 1⁄2 feet in width and retaining the four-foot sidewalks that are in place. We already have two driveway aprons in this area. Those would be affected by this as well. That is an unusual recommendation. It would ease the need for the transition from the 6241 section further along Battery Street. It would be a more gentle transition, but that is the basic difference between the staff and the appellant on this, as far as the staff is aware, as they are not interested in changing the existing cross-section there. The next page, page 7, is an important consideration in deciding whether to require this change or leave the section that is there. The subdivision regulations have different requirements for the depth of a local street versus a collector street. And what is highlighted in this is called the asphalt base course. For a local street, which this street currently is, there is one inch of top surface, three inches of asphalt base, and nine inches of granular. For a collector street, the granular is actually one less inch shallower in its requirement. However, the asphalt base course is six inches in depth, again with the same one-inch top covering. The applicant has told the planning staff and the Division of Engineering that they are agreeable to making this section meet the depth standards of a collector street. The implication of that is the existing curbing there, if the additional three feet of asphalt were applied, if, for instance, the one-inch top course were removed, the three additional inches of asphalt were applied, and then the inch top coat would be reapplied to this section, the curbs would no longer be sufficient. They would be three inches below the asphalt. That leads us to conclude those curbs will have to be replaced if that is done. If the curbs have to be replaced to meet the depth of the pavement, we think that this is an opportunity to allow the curbs to be moved out as well so that we can get a minimally compliant collector street of 37 feet in this location. We do not think our recommendation is out of bounds for that reason. Finally, on page 8 of the staff exhibits, the one issue that was a bit of a surprise, when the plan initially was filed, Battery Street was shown as a local street, And as a local street, the spacing proposed from Patch and Wilkes Drive to this first local street was at 290 feet. That is compliant with the subdivision regulations. However, if this section is indeed made a collector street, that standard increases to a minimum of 400 feet. 400 feet would be about one lot depth further from this intersection that is currently proposed, 110 feet farther away. The staff realized the need that this would require a waiver from the Planning Commission to allow this 290-foot spacing to remain. So we have prepared for you the necessary findings to approve that spacing waiver. We've identified on page 8 the section of the subregs that needs to be waived. on the very first page of the staff exhibits where it prepared the necessary findings. I should say findings. The first would be that the staff recommends approval of this waiver to Section 68Q2D5 of the subdivision regulations for two reasons. The requested waiver would relieve an exceptional hardship for the applicant. A total redesign of the lotting pattern for the subdivision would be necessitated without the approval of this waiver. Secondly, the granting the waiver will not negatively impact public health and safety due to the connectivity of the development and since it might also result in a bit of traffic calming in this area. Any other photos? Is that the last photo? Do you want the other ones? Okay. Thank you. That concludes the staff presentation. We have a very unusual recommendation for you today, but at this time I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Planning Commission. Questions? Patrick. Yeah, Bill, just back on this raising or adding the extra three inches, three inches, three feet, did you say? I may have said three feet. I meant three inches. All right, so the difference we're talking about is three inches of asphalt above the existing curb. So in my simple mind, that seems like not that big a deal. What's the benefit of raising this short part of this road to meet the feeder street requirements versus just making it even with the curb, the existing curb, such that you'd get a little bit more benefit of the increased asphalt, right, without requiring them to move existing curbs? Yes, what the difference would be would be with today it's flush or planned to be flush with the asphalt and the gutter of the curb. If the depth is increased by three inches, you'd now have, if you would, a rut between the asphalt and the curb. That would compromise the life of the asphalt as vehicles would go across that edge. I'm sorry, Bill. Clearly, I'm asking the question wrong. I'm sorry. I'm saying if it's existing flush right now, what's the damage of just leaving it as is? It seems like a short piece of stretch, a stretch of road, to go to a whole lot of difficult, to move the curbs and everything else. That's the basic issue here. The only worry that the staff would have would be on the performance of the life of the asphalt, since as a collector street it would ordinarily have much more traffic than a local street. That's the short answer. And with, again, this short of a stretch of road, increased traffic as it's a feeder, when's your sense that it would start causing a problem? Is this 20 years down the road or no pun intended? I am not an engineer on asphalt depth, so I really don't know the answer of what the life difference might be. Other questions for Mr. Salley? We've got Ms. Phillips. So this is all because the applicant is changing the collector street from Patchen Wilkes, which was designed at the appropriate width and course depth, to battery. But isn't the balance of battery that's already built still substandard in terms of width and in terms of pavement depth? Yes, this is also a local street, but it ends in a cul-de-sac, so it will still function as a cul-de-sac. The collector would basically be a stop condition here and a 90-degree curve to go out to Winchester Road. So ordinarily, the subdivision regulations require nice, gentle curves on collector streets. We would have collector street width here, but this would have to be a multi-stop condition. It just seems to me that it's a whole lot more expense to do, to make that 90-degree turn, to have Battery become the collector, than to go continue on with Patch and Wilkes through to what the comprehensive plan had originally indicated. And I suppose the applicant has done cost analyses and probably hear from them. I would very much believe that they have information as to why they're no longer proposing this. Just looking at the topo, the staff can understand why, but numerically we don't have any information to share with you. Thank you. Other questions? Bill, one quick question, follow-up to where Ms. Phillips was talking. When we were talking about topo and so forth, was the topo considered when the plan was laid out originally for the collector street to go that way? I would have thought so. I would have thought so as well. That plan is probably six years old. And I cannot remember any of the details of the review of that plan, to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. All right. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I have Tim Haymaker here with me as well, a developing entity. try to answer some of your questions. In 2003, we did the zone change, and the layout for our overall collector street was fairly close to what Comprehensive Plan had at that time. Having Patch and Wilkes Drive come in and make a knuckle into Trade Center Drive, it was pretty close to what was always on the books, and we had revised it a little bit. there's about a 30-foot elevation change, and we're crossing a gas transmission line right through here. And it was early on when we were doing Tuscany, we thought that we'd be able to raise and lower this line without too much hassle. That's not the case. Getting in there and messing with their transmission line is a very expensive ordeal, as is 30 foot of elevation change trying to make that collector connection at that point. So as we were doing this, it does seem to be a one-issue item. The Battery Street seemed to be the next logical place to come back, make an action. We're talking one lot depth of road, and we are completely agreeable to keeping the curbs where they are, pulling out the asphalt and DGA, dropping it down, putting in new DGA, the six inches of asphalt base, and then the one inch top. And as soon as we come back past those two built lots, people living there, then we'll transition out to the standard collector for the rest of the development. Tim can probably answer more of the money questions and decisions that went into it there. We are working with the two landowners on either side about signing it, no parking on the battery side street. One of them has told us he has no problem with that. I'm waiting to hear from the other one. He's just moved in. In widening the curbs and taking those utility strips down to 2 1⁄2 feet, you also have your utilities in there you have to worry about, and the street trees would then be taken out of those utility strips and placed in the people's front yard. Whether or not that would be of an issue to them, having bought the property in one capacity and having it changed, I don't know. But we're trying to affect the homeowners as little as possible. Pushing back those curbs, you also start messing with their driveway ramps and how it hits the sidewalk. And if you had to change anything related to the sidewalk, then you'd be affecting from there the rest of the driveway up to the house. So we're really trying to keep those curb lines intact. And we know we need to do more depth on a collector, and we're willing to do that. Sorry, questions, Mr. Pimm? rory talk to me a little bit about this battery street going from a going to a collector as far as the width is concerned are we creating a choke point there is that what we're doing yes as you come down to the intersection of patch and wilkes drive battery street would be a stop condition so besides having a stop sign you're also going to be narrowing the street at that point but if you don't park on either side you don't think it's an issue? No, you still have 31 feet of drivable space if there's no parking through there. I don't foresee needing extra left turn lanes at this location, but you have room for bigger vehicles to make those turns. So the turn radius wouldn't be a problem? No. No, the turn radius for an intersection, whether it's collector or local, stays the same. Mr. Cravens? Rory, when you take that pavement out to make it collector street standard, you can take out enough and put it back where it's back level with the curb, right? You wouldn't have to raise it three inches above the curb. Right. I believe you can take from the curb, cut straight down. I think the curbs are all on their own DGA base. And then once you get down to the DGA and pull that out, you would go three more inches deep and start putting your stone back in at that point. So your blacktop would be back where it should be? Yes. We want the curbs to stay as is. You're just going to take it out deeper so that you can put more of the? Yes, three inches deeper for more, less gravel but more asphalt base. And then if, I guess the problem I see, because I'm building a house around there on another street, is identifying that where that street turns there. I mean, if you're trying to find your way back through there and you're coming up through there on a real wide street, I mean, is there some way you could put signage or stripes or something to make sure that, you know, that collector street turns left right there? A four-way stop would help notify everyone. If you were to continue straight through, get down there to the end of that, the only option you have is left and you'd find yourself right back up on Battery Street. I don't think you would miss it more than once. And anything that the city, signage-wise, I think we could add something to future trade center drive, future collector, or something that can be added. I just don't know what signage would be. That street's real nice to go up through there. I mean, you've got to dodge a few triaxle dump trucks, stuff like that. right now. But I'm just trying to say, you know, you've got all those people who have to find their way back in there, and you've got to give people directions when you build the houses to find their way back in there. I mean, it just needs to be some way to tell that that street's turning, that you don't need to go on up Patch and Wilkes, you need to turn there. Yeah, I think the four-way stop would help. and making it not quite a clean shot over it was also part of consideration. Trade Center Drive not wanting to get the traffic from their trucks coming through the neighborhood. Had we connected it straight into Trade Center Drive, our light at Patch and Wilkes and Winchester would have been a very easy shortcut to the interstate for them. So anything that would make it harder for that commercial traffic to get through the residential is good. in our opinion. Mr. Kaling, let me ask you this. We've got some revised conditions here. In addition to the 8, we've got 9, 10, and 11. Am I hearing that with number 9, you're okay with the depth, but you really don't want to go to the 50-37 cross-section? The 50-foot right-of-way stays. It's that 37-foot where each curb is moving back 3. Right now we're 31 back a curb. Back of curb. So that's 30. Okay. And I guess 10 and 11 you're okay with? Yes. Yeah. Through the revisions and all that, the number 11, the waiver is required. And we're fine with limiting that parking. And I think we can turn those first houses. and having that the next intersection up that's what number 10 speaks to is limiting where their driveways can go that's fine okay but traffic mr. Neal would do you have any comments would you like to provide any input any thoughts on this Mr. Chairman, Jeff Neal with Traffic Engineering. We've been in conversation with both Planning and the developer on this, and from my understanding, actually, option A would be to widen the street out three feet, match the old collector's type section just to make it more identifiable. They are working with the property owners on either side to eliminate parking. and that's something we look for with that type of intersection. If we can eliminate the parking, there is enough space there to accommodate all kinds of vehicles. So that's something we don't want to go out on our own and strike parking for no good reason. So where are you on the recommendation as far as 5037 or 5031? I guess that's the difference right now, isn't it? The preferred recommendation would be to widen the curbs out. The secondary, I think it would work, is to have a guarantee that the parking would be eliminated and stay eliminated should the property develop the way they're showing it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from Planning Commission? Anyone in the... Mr. Kavey? Mr. Haymaker Sir Tim Haymaker 3120 Wall Street and I am the developer I am a community builder I do nothing that harms a community I would do nothing here that would harm a community I am doing everything I can to make this the best place to live times are different these started out to be 70 foot lots now we had to make them 50 foot lots we sold one lot to my son in three years, and I had to buy it back from him, go back in, make them 50-foot lots. They have done very well since then. It's the only thing I have that's moving, the 50-foot lots. One of the worst nightmares that I have, just to be real frank with you, is if we had taken Battery Street up and turned it into Trade Center Drive, you have 18 wheelers coming from that industrial area straight down through to Patch and Wilkes Drive. I believe, and when I first started doing this, everybody wanted traffic calming. Well, that's what I believe that my goal is, too, and that is to don't give great big long through shots. And I understand there has to be connectivity. I believe in that, and I want that. It's important for me to get these folks not to have to go into Winchester Road but another way out. We have 565 acres out there. I can't start to tell you how this is going to end up looking today. We have, I'll give you, what do I do here? I'll give you an example. Maybe, if I know where I am. Where's the entrance to this thing? Where am I? South of Winchester. Yeah. No, it's not on here. Well, right here at Patch and Wilkes entrance, two months ago, I had no idea that I'm working with an apartment developer. we're going to build another collector. That will be a collector through there. So you'll have two collectors that come off of the early part of Patch and Wilkes Drive. It will go back in there and have connectivity. I've got to get to the other end to Sir Barton so that people can get on to Sir Barton without getting on Winchester Road. That should be your goal too, I would think. The other considerations are we have walls and trails out there. You know me. I've done nice things out of Beaumont with walls and trails, and I'm going to do that again here. It's important for me to offer as much as I can to the people to want to live here. The gas line, we tried to work with that, and the Topo, they quoted us $3 million to move the gas line. Well, at the time, it was a 62-year-old gas line, and they wanted us to pay for it all brand new from one end to the other, and they didn't want to contribute a penny. Well, that wasn't right. Regarding the directions, I think we can put a no outlet sign and show that Battery Street goes left, no outlet in front of it. If you're coming out of Battery Street, the new Battery Street, we can put Winchester Road and give a right turn directional signal. If you go straight, you're going into a cul-de-sac. You'll only make that mistake once, and you'll know better. I think it's only fair to say that there may be a public use that happens on Battery Street, and we're more than happy to have the extra width of road so that if people were to pull off to the side of the road during the day or something, that they would be adequately accommodated. But my personal feeling is I like the idea of choking down Battery Street just before you get on to Patch and Wilkes so that there is slower traffic. Because once you turn right, you're on the downhill grade to Patch and Wilkes. And I think it's better to be slow than safe with children present. These are the kind of houses that children live in. They're not for retirement. They're not for the ultra young. I don't even know what that is anymore. but last but not least if we take out the curb we are creating serious problems for the two people that already live there and i hate to tell you but one guy's lived there he closed on his deal three days ago and to go in there and say to him oh tricked you gonna have to go in here and make this a steeper grade, and if you have a high-profile car, when you come down, your bumper's going to hit the asphalt. I don't believe that that's the right thing to do. I will make the full depth of that road to the standard that Bill referred to. And here's your last thing. I have to warrant these roads. If for some reason we get down there and we figure out that an extra three inches is going to cause the curb and gutter to fall in, first of all, we'll fix it immediately. We won't do that because it's a long-term deal for us. I've got road warranties on some of this stuff that are eight and nine years old. I'd sure like to get rid of some of those, but market's the market. But if something happens or if we find a condition that won't support that, we'll fix it immediately. However, you've got a year after final surface that I have to warrant the road. If there's failure, it's my 100 percent responsibility, backed up by a letter of credit to the urban county government, that it has to be fixed right. And I'm here to promise you that that will be done. So do you have questions or things that I can answer? Thank you, Mr. Haymaker. There are a couple of questions. I'm not sure to who, but Ms. Beatty? I actually think Mr. Haymaker answered my question during his comments. comments. It had to do with the curving. Okay. Mr. Penn? Mr. Haymaker, while we've got you up here, let's talk about crossing the gas line where you've decided to show where the street's going to go. In other words, I know you have a topographical area, but what's the issue with crossing the gas line up there versus crossing the gas line down there? Roy, do you know the topo on this? There is a draw that comes down through here. And so where we would be keeping the elevation of the gas line set, having a collector come across and make the turn into here, it looked like about 30 feet from the lowest to the highest point, 30 feet of fill just to make that corner. As you come through over here, elevation, it's a much more gradual change from here, and it still gives you a chance to finish out the grading as you come down to where we think the extension collector will eventually be. But you're still crossing the same gas line. Yes. If you don't have to mess with it, if you cross up there, you do have to mess with it if you cross closer to it. Yes, and throughout Tuscany we've had one, I think we'll probably have two or three more, and usually it's with the collector system that is doing the big crossing through the center. We have a low area through the middle of Tuscany and the gas is not too far outside of that. The reason I'm asking that is that if you are going to make that a collector street and then you come in to develop the rest of this and all of a sudden you've got gas line problems again, where is that street going to go? See what I'm saying? If you're going to make this a collector street and you're just coming down to the end of this development plan right now, Say you come in to develop the rest of that, and all of a sudden the gas line is going to give you a problem again. My concern is if we make that a collector street to that point, are we pretty sure we can connect it down here and that road is going to be built? Are we back in the same situation with the next development we were with this one? Well, I think that we can resolve that with that next section. The piece that you're talking about that we're trying to avoid at this point in time, Not only do we have 30 feet of topo, it creates an issue of getting these 18-wheelers that I'm trying to avoid from coming directly through a neighborhood of children. I'm trying my best, Mr. Penn. It's difficult. I can tell you it is difficult. It's 75 feet wide, and it takes a lot of our land. And so, you know, it's kind of odd having these big backyards. backyard. You've got to figure out how to make it a backyard. And so you have to get pretty creative. Any other questions? No, thank you. Let me ask if there's anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this plan. Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from the commission members and or a motion. Mr. Rurer. Well, after getting my lesson in asphalt that I never thought I would before, I think the compromise that the applicant has offered is adequate. Don't want to stop any other discussion, but if nobody else has concerns, I'd make a motion for approval. Hold on just a second. Ms. Beatty? I just have a question. When we are designing collector streets, and I'm assuming that this is a staff question, is there not a master plan so that we fully understand where the street is going and how it is to develop? And I realize that you're not sure what development is going to be there, but that's just sort of a general question I'm trying to get a full understanding of how we do that. Until a couple of months ago, I think the staff believed that Patch and Wilkes Drive would be the collector that connected into what might be an extension of Trade Center. When this plan was first filed and that connection was stopped is when this issue of how to get the collector connection between the two streets rose up. Of course, with the comp plan, we really had nothing very long ago to indicate anything other than that. Any other questions? Mr. Pimm? While you're up there, this is just an overarching question, because we know Mr. Haymer is going to eventually develop the rest of this depending on market, and I understand all that. What I don't understand is doing the collector street one section at a time as far as planning. Suppose you come in the next time and he wants apartments there, and he's going to move it back the other way. Sooner or later, we're going to have to develop a planning mechanism that lets us have a pretty good idea in a piece of property that's 500-something acres where the collector streets are going to be and then work around them. This piecemeal by piecemeal, we're going to wind up like a Sarin Drive situation or like this where we've got a choke point because we didn't see this coming. So I'm not against this. I'm just against this developing collector streets one development at a time. And I don't know how to fix it, but that's why you all know how to fix it, and I just think we need to look at that. I understand that, and I think from the staff perspective, all along on this plan has been, how do you get a collector's system to connect where Trade Center stubs today to where Patch and Wilk stubs today? The issue you've raised is the much larger area. I think if we get into a discussion on the next plan, you will see additional information beyond just the minimal connection that I described. Anything else? If not, Mr. Brewer, go on with your motion. Yeah, I would like to make a motion for approval of 2012-101P, Tuscany Unit 8. And I think we need to do based on findings. Is that correct? We need, yeah. Findings for the waiver. Can we do it all at once, Bill? Yes, sir. Based on the findings of staff? And then the only issue would be on condition 9 that's recommended. So what do I need to do with 9? I think if you want to approve it as the developer and the applicant have asked for, you would delete condition 9. If you want the staff recommendation to be followed, you would adopt condition 9. And the motion would include deletion of number 9. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2012-101P with now 10 conditions deleting what is shown on the staff exhibit, deleting number 9, noting the findings for the waiver as well. motion was made and seconded by Mr. Cravens please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes next maybe right there adjoining it plan 2012-113P Tuscany unit 9 Thank you. Thank you. It's Plan 2012-113P. It's Tuscany Unit 9. This is for property located at 1970 Winchester Road. This property is located... This is Winchester Road. This is Patch and Wilkes Boulevard. Unit 8 that you just looked at is right in this area. And this is unit 9. It is adjoining unit 8. This is Battery Street. The collector width shown there, shown continuing here, showing a future collector snippet there. Again, another future collector snippet there that would connect down this way, and we'll get to that in just a moment. This is a preliminary subdivision plan for 204 buildable lots. As you can see, this is the gas easement running through the property. Show Battery Street crossing in this area. Street, local street coming down through to the other collector street. And this additional street coming through as well. Subdivision committee staff recommended postponement in its last meeting, subject to the 11 conditions as noted on your agenda, first six being sign-offs and the rest being discussion items. Principally, it's conditions 7, 8, and 9 that the staff has the greatest concern is related to connections as shown on the plan. Number 7 was to discuss the connections to future development areas to the northeast and to the southwest. Again, I'll kind of kick over to this overall. This is the old Rosebud connection where we have the Trilogy Health development here. This is Sir Barton. This is Winchester Road and Patch and Wilkes. The red is existing street network. The pink is what's proposed. This is the developer's proposal for overall collector connections with the two areas that are currently in shown on here. The issue with connections to the northeast and southwest was related to what we've shown here. These three locations as kind of options. The primary reason for that being a distance of about 3,000 linear feet between this area and Meeting Street, the stub down in this area. We understand the applicant's desire to keep that as a trail for pedestrian multi-use. However, also like the Beaumont area, there are street connections that do cross that trail. We do support connections through those where reasonable to support the rest of this development as it were to come in as well. Condition number eight was to discuss the timing of street connectivity to Battery Street. That also relates to the proposed street pattern and the number of lots served by one access number nine. This development, as you can see, cannot be constructed timing-wise until this is done. This section of Battery Street is the only street to serve these 200 lots. related to the timing overall it is a number of lots shown in this area and this area each shown having only access back out to the main connector street via only one access as you can see the staff's primary concerns on this plan are related to overall connections and timing with only one access point to serve the development we do believe with the revision that the applicant submitted previously a cul-de-sac was here there was no other connection out they've added this connection back out to battery street so this portion of the property came in i feel that the planned boundary discussion is one that we feel has mostly been resolved the discussion of the electrical utility crossing over the existing gas easement was something that was mentioned at technical committee it is a significant issue but it will be something that we think will obviously have to be resolved going forward but if you have any questions on this i'd be happy to try to answer them questions yes mr wilson oh back up to battery street is what would you do is that a stop sign or just a signalized area coming off of well this is the extension of battery street there is no this portion down here this intersection with the future collector is not shown so we're not i think advocating any sort of traffic control for this strip i think back what was shown at the other intersection on the other plane is where a stop sign for the signal for that intersection would go what about coming out of the uh yeah no move up a little bit to the right yeah those where the dark areas are is that a stop where it goes into that uh battery no it's Over to the left. Over here? Yeah, right there. That would just be a straight. Straight, so there's no signal or anything. Oh, okay, thank you. No, the next connection with a collector would be at this intersection. Oh, okay. Ms. Phillips? Chris, looking at the alignment of the gas line, it appears that some of those lots coming where you have Battery Street written. Now go to the other map, please. Yeah, in this area. Yeah. It looks like we're going to be working with some really compromised lots. There is buildable area on each lot where they're shown. You see some very wide lotting for these in this area and some deep lots in this area to support the locations of that. And then this area is an HOA lot that provides access to the trail. It looks to me as though beyond the cul-de-sac, that first cul-de-sac. This one? Yeah. The gas line was taken into consideration in terms of lot design, but we got a little bit of a mess. I think there's topographic issues for the number of cul-de-sacs on this plan as well. There are, there's a draw, things flowing this way and this way. So you just have a V coming in with the rest of it coming out. That's the reason you see the topographic drains down to this area in the pinch. I think that's part of the design. The rest is the gas line. But there is enough buildable areas? Yes. On each of these lots where the gas line, there is a buildable area. The ones where the gas line is on the side lot line or on the rear, I have no problem with. But it appears that it's bisecting. Yes. Really, there is enough area for it. It is going to be a constrained lot. There's no question. Discounted in price then probably, huh? Okay. Other questions? Mr. Taylor, two questions, I guess. You're showing the overview, and this is the plan as it's going to be built there where the gas line is, Battery Street, and so forth. That one street does come out to Battery Street? Yeah. Yeah, both of these streets do connect to Battery Street. Okay. The other question I've got right now down at the opposite end, I guess leading towards Sobarton. Yeah, in this area. Yeah. Looks like on the plan, part of that street, whatever street that is, right down at the bottom. This is via Medici right here. Go back to the other plan. Yeah, that one where the lots are. What's that street that comes off? This is not existing. I understand. But it looks like part of that street is going to be because you've got lots on it. Yeah, that's correct, yes. Okay. Going back to my right, it's not being built? No. That leads to Sir Barton? Yes. Okay. How long is that section that's not built? Oh, well, that would be from here to there. No. I'm sorry, this direction to Sir Barton, or are you talking about this little piece right there? Yeah, that section. That's about 300 feet. 300 feet. Sir Barton's built? Yes, Sir Barton's built. Okay. None of this to get to it is. So you've got one section 300 feet that's not built? You've got a whole pink section here. This being Sir Barton, is being a proposed collector. I'm sorry. Not only 300 feet. I'm on the wrong street. Okay. All right. Okay, then. Anything else? I'm sorry for the confusion, Chris. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, against Rory Kaley with EA Partners. So we're in agreement with the first six conditions. Chris explained it well. There are numerous draws through there. We are showing a loop on everything here on Unit 9. Before, it was all one-directional. You'd start in up there at the battery near the gas crossing, and everything would be fed off of that. Through technical, they asked us to come back with one more connection. So we've made a complete loop here. Continuation for that with the number of houses that we're doing at Tuscany, on the overhead you can see that we're starting in two different directions out here. Had we tried to do all of Tuscany from one side, we would have really overloaded the street system. So we are working. Unit 1 is built. Unit 2 and 3 is approved. the retirement homes I'm not sure residents homes are built so we have it started over here we've got street system through here we're starting another link this is built this is what we were looking at today we're planning on getting these streets to join together comp plan wise here opposite patch and Wilkes there's another planned lighted intersection to bring more people in. This is your Sir Barton. We have a unit 5 here that was approved while ago. It shows its collector starting this direction as well. So this is a very large area and we're coming at it from different sides trying to meet in the middle so that we don't do all your development and overload one side. So this is the plan we think the collector streets are geared towards today as we bring in more development more lots. we'll be finishing those up and making these connections. We're not trying to do away with connections. We're just trying to make them as less cut-through and as advantageous to the homeowners as we can. And I guess with any of the other discussion items, electricity, yes, Joe Oakley spoke about, again, And Columbia Gas Transmissions are very adamant about their gas lines. He has to go up and over. Don't lay the gas lines and the electricity lines too close together. Our streeting pattern, we made the extra connection. With 8 being approved, we now have a way to get to battery. Last month, 8 was not approved, so 9 did not have an approved linkage. Thanks. I guess with that, we'll take any questions you'd have. Thank you, Mr. Kady. Mike Cravens. Yeah, Roy, is that one big lot right there on Battery Street and where that – yeah, what is that? HOA. HOA. HOA lot. There's – yeah, coming down off that crossing, and again, there's some draws through there. We had not made this Lower Street connect back to Battery originally. It's not ideal, but for linkage purposes, we've included that in there. That's just a lower area where if we don't have to get in there and fill, we'll leave it green. Ms. Phillips? I guess this question is for staff and maybe other commission members who sit on the subdivision committee. And I recognize, too, that this property was rezoned, what, nine years ago, almost ten years ago. But I'm looking at the design, the overall design, and we're seeing a lot of cul-de-sacs, which weren't we trying to get away from cul-de-sacs to create greater connectivity with respect to our Complete Streets plan? I will tell you that the staff did look at trying to connect the cul-de-sacs on the one side of the property to the other. and Mr. Taylor and I spent some time pouring over that part of the plan. And the draw that is there will be a severe topographic limitation to doing that. We thought that might relieve some of these discussion items. The ones on the lower right of the plan, the draw is not as severe there, but as you can see, those streets don't line up. So connecting there would leave you with offset intersections, which would be just a different type of problem. But I can tell you the staff did review that with some detail and hoped to be able to offer you a recommendation for at least one connection across there. Thank you. Mr. Penn. Mr. Kaye, this would have been very helpful if I'd seen this plan first. But without eight being approved, we couldn't look at this one. I needed Battery Street. I understand that, but that just goes to my overall frustration about this whole process. But on this, how deep is that gas line? Do you know? I don't believe it's consistent in any one location. Do you know what the minimum depth it has to be? I do not. I'm just worried about somebody having a real high squawance on some afternoon there. Mr. Penn, that is a transmission line. It's not a secondary line, and it has to meet PSC regulations. So we haven't done anything to change the topography from when it was originally put in. And so there could be erosion or something that may make a little bit of difference. But for the most part, that line is per the Public Service Commission. Yeah, but it's basically a pretty deep line. Because I've seen out there where they're replacing or building that new oil line through there. Or not through there, but out through the other way. I guess the connectivity is where I'm trying to go, Roy, with this. And I understand what you say about the topographical part of it. But Ms. Phillips is right. We've spent a lot of time arguing about connectivity. And you get to looking at this, you know, it's one way in, one way out. And that's something, Lynn, that we've really tried to avoid, especially when we had that discussion with Taze Creek Pike and a lot of issues. Is that going to be a general pattern over this whole 500 acres? Because it's not all have those kind of topographical issues. You are precisely right. The difficulty with any plan that's 10 years old is that things change dramatically. And I mean dramatically. Nothing what we expected out here. But so you don't get blindsided at some point in time. Let me have a pen that I could use for just a second. Just so you know how frustrating and complicated it is, there's a high probability that that large piece of land might be a public service or two. So connectivity for these neighborhoods to get from one side to the next, with this being a full-blown stream that goes down through there, there has to be crossings, and it's more important to me that that's crossed than probably to you. And so how do we know? We don't know because we have no commitments of any kind, but we're making provisions. And it's frustrating. And we don't know how to bring you something without just keep changing it. So I want you to know kind of in advance there's something else hanging out there. There are three things hanging out there. And it's difficult to work around that, but we're doing the best we can. I don't know whether I've got comfort in that or not. You should. You should feel better. Mr. Brewer. Yeah, just on the connectivity and cul-de-sacs. I don't recall being involved in a lot of the connectivity discussions, so maybe those predate me. But just speaking personally, we bought our house on a cul-de-sac because of the cul-de-sac. And for us and our neighbors, we have kids that played in the street like we used to do. You know, you can't do that on a major connected street like this if you had it running through there. So I think the tradeoff of this, of having the cul-de-sac and the quiet area for kids to play, trumps tenfold the connectivity issue. If you can keep people from cutting through it 40 miles an hour or trucks or whatever else. Mr. Berkeley? Well, I was just going to follow up on what Patrick said because I agree. And I see this in doing the type of work I do, appraisal work. But, you know, neighborhoods form in these pods like this. That's what people desire. They don't want the cut through. They don't want to be on the main streets. And they're willing to pay, you know, premiums for that. Let me ask. First, let me ask. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none. Mr. Kaling, let me ask you this. number 10, discuss plan boundaries, or Mr. Salley, has that been resolved? I'm sorry, Chris. We mostly feel that it has. This area of the plan was not included on the original submission. With the addition of this area and the additional connection to serve this property, we feel that that issue is mostly resolved. Okay. What about number, while you're here, what about number 11, the crossing the gas easement it will have to be resolved so i think we're comfortable with the resolve on 11. like i said our main our main concerns were regarding number seven eight and nine on this plan okay all right then um mr kayley do you have anything else to add on seven eight or nine at this point no we're good thank you okay all right thank you um commission your wishes as 2789 right now? We haven't discussed them. Have they been resolved? I guess that's my question. I think the condition is just that we're discussing. Okay, Ms. Plumlee? Yes, I have a problem with the gas line. I think for a development to be at this stage and when we are asked what's the depth, what's the size, that information should be readily right available. And when you're going to sell these lots, do those people know, those future tenants, owners, do they know that they are sitting on a gas line? And what are the consequences? Ms. Plumman, the answer is there are white stakes with orange tops all the way along this gas line, so everybody will know it. Secondly, when we crossed that in our Tuscany portion of Tuscany, we put fences along so everybody would know. We made that common area, so we kept it mowed, and we didn't have to worry about other people mowing it. and just to tell you the truth the gas company can't tell you how deep it is we've asked what we know is it's 75 feet wide and we won't jeopardize a family by putting them within that 75 feet and we have a backyard that will back up to this so they've actually we've had the electric company wanted us to resolve the depth of this but we really couldn't do it we've got somebody that's supposedly renting equipment that's going to go out there and go along the gas line, which has grown up, as you might imagine, and try to find out what the depth is and where it's located. We're doing our best to answer that, and I wish I could give you an answer, but if the gas company doesn't know, I don't know how we would know more than they do. Does that answer your question? I understand that's a frustrating question. Mr. Taylor, anything you'd like to add? I do want to point out the staff's biggest concern with the connectivity at this point is because we understand the topographic issues. It's the lack of connectivity to the rest of the future development here and the three sort of things we've just kind of marked as potential crossings to serve this portion of the development as it comes in. I think we're sort of resigned to the fact that the cul-de-sacs in this development are kind of are what they are. It's future connections to the rest of the development that we have the biggest concern with. Thank you. Are there any other discussion, any other questions from the Commission? If not, I'll close this part of it and open it up for any discussion among the Commission members and or motion. Mr. Brewer? I'll move their approval of 2012-113P, Tuscany, Unit 9. Okay, do we have a second? I'll second, but what about all those discussions? Okay. My understanding was they stand as is because we have discussed them. Staff, is that correct or not? You may want to consider your action if this commission satisfied deleting 7 through 11. I'm fine with that. Rory, you guys got any concern with deleting some conditions? I then amend the motion to delete 7 through 11. Okay. Hold on one second. We do have a motion on the floor. Let me get a second on that first. The motion has been made and seconded. With his amendments, I presume, Mr. Cravens. Okay. Mr. Penn, question first. I don't think we can just discuss it and leave it. I think the connectivity issue, especially across that trailer right there, when that comes back in to be developed, there needs to be some way to connect that. And if we don't put it in this development plan, then they're going to say, well, it doesn't line up, and we can't put it in the next one. So do you want to put that one back in with resolve? Yes, I would like to do that. And the other thing I'd like to do is talk about the timing of the connectivity to Battery Street because those are issues that get people in and out, get fire trucks in and out. I just think it's too big an issue to just say, well, we discussed it, but we're not going to. Understood. I defer here to Bill. Do we need to pull back the motion to have this discussion? Yes. Okay. I'd like to retract my motion at this point to allow discussion items that Mr. Penn has raised and anything that Ms. Betty would like to raise also. Okay. Okay, so now, Mr. Parliamentarian, we withdraw your second, Mr. Cravens. I presume that's a confirmation. So we're back where we started with no motion on the floor. Ms. Beatty? I was just going to comment to say I don't have any problems with the motion, but rather than delete 7 through 11, my preference would be to put in resolve on each one of those 7 through 11 so that there could be some follow-up. Personally, I would tend to agree with that as well. So it has been resolved. I'll put it that way. Number 10 has been resolved. Yes, number 10 can be deleted. The other items, Ms. Beatty, are you wishing to make a motion? Yes. Can I ask a question, Mr. Cayley? Go right ahead. Okay. If we leave this connection issue as a resolve, we've shown what we'd like to do. We're having that 3,000 foot marked up there is an existing farm lane, trees, course fence. It's got the whole nine yards. And that is something that with the zone change, we are going to keep certain areas of that for pedestrian connection. so you know it's our plan to leave that intact when we develop the other side we would have lots coming to the back of it as well and pedestrian connections so that that would not be broken by vehicular traffic until you're down here at a collector or up near the top at meeting street and patching wilk so i'm you know does resolve mean we have to make connections when we don't want to or where are we headed with the resolve i would think resolve would mean you come to terms with staff and engineering on these things. And could staff make a note? Personally, this would be my thought, would be that I think this needs a little bit more work. I'm not hardly ready yet. And I'm not saying take it all the way back to the drawing board, but I would say continue it and see if you can work with staff to continue resolving these things. Ms. Beatty? I've got a couple other people that have got questions, but you? I actually wanted to echo what you were saying. Now we're saying resolve, and now we're saying should there be a note, or could there be a note made? Maybe this needs to go back with a little more work with staff and come back to us. Does that affect any timing that is critical? you have until the end of the year to approve or deny this plan mr fan do you have a question yeah i mean mr uh some people are not going to like this but i i think we're at the point right now where we need to do the staff recommendation for a postponement and and and get these issues resolved and and i know you're all not going to like that but i just don't want to come in here with another development plan, and that is a dedicated, I assume it's a farm road up through there, so the issue is whether they cross the farm road or they don't. We're not talking about a pedestrian connection. We're talking about a way to get in and out of there. And Chris, am I right or wrong on that? Yeah, that's twice. Sorry about that. I do want to point out, this is the reason the staff recommended postponement. These are, for all practical purposes, the first substantive discussions we've had on connections on this plan or today in front of you, which is what we were attempting to avoid. If you did want to change 7 and 8, we can talk about that, but we would prefer it to have to be in some language that does give us direction, something to the effect of provide at least one connection to future development areas, something in that regard, if that's where you're headed. But postponement, I think, is where staff's preference lies on this right now. For instance, if I can expand on that, just changing number seven to resolve connections, I think the staff's preference would be that we have at least one connection there, but that is a resolve issue. I'm not sure the staff would have leverage to actually require that that plan be changed before it's certified. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilson? Do you want to go back where you started from? Got a motion on the floor. Oh, thank you. No. We had here motion and second. Yeah. I thought she made a motion. She never did get to that point. In that case. She was close. Did you make a motion? No, she did not. We're discussing it. I think Ms. Beatty is ready for a motion. Mr. Brewer? No, I'd like you to comment before we give a motion. Okay, that's fine. Now we back off where I thought we were. I've got to have my mic on. Again, I look at this, and what I understand is there's a nice tree line back there at this 3,000 mark. Is that correct? I haven't scaled it, but yeah. On the map here, there's something marked right now. And I don't remember whether it was you or Mr. Haymaker that was saying what you were trying to do is to have some pedestrian pathways and others where the roads didn't connect, but you had something there you were protecting. Is that right? Yes. So, again, with due respect to connectivity, I look at that and think I'd prefer to have a big bunch of trees behind my house rather than a road connecting it. And I think that would trump the impetus to have connectivity. But, again, I'm not going to hold this up one way or the other on that. That's just my opinion on it. That's where I kind of think further discussions needed with the applicant and the staff. Ms. Beatty? Anyone else have any discussion? I'm going to make a motion. I think we're ready. Okay. I move that we postpone Plan 2012-113P, Tuscany Unit 9, with the recommendation from the staff. And just for clarification, I just feel like that there needs to be more conversation between the applicant and the staff, and hopefully we can see this again before the end of the year. Thank you. I think legal-wise that would be more of a continuation than a postponement, if you're okay with that wording. Yes, you probably should continue. Yes. Okay. All right. Hold on one second. Motion's been made and seconded for continuation of Plan 2012-113P. Hold on one second. Ms. Plumlee, did you have a question? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Mr. Kaley, comment? Yes. Go back when the discussion was on what the resolve was and if it was one condition Mr. Aemaker agreed if they wanted one connection, one time to cross through that trail area. If that makes everyone happy, we'd be agreeable to that. There is, once you come off of Winchester, there's another street off of Patchen Wilkes Drive, Meeting Street, that will serve as well as the new collector on Winchester. Those two are the main feeders for the area to the right of that trail. He's agreed he'll put one connection through there as well. It seems to be what everyone's after. As far as the connection going that direction, personally I think three would be too many. One, I think, could work. Pedestrian access would be great. And as to that, the wishes from the Commission. Three were shown on the plan. It wasn't meant to suggest there should be three connections. We were showing potential locations for a connection. Would staff be okay with one? Yeah, and that would provide at least one connection, I think, on number seven, and then something to resolve or denote the timing of street connectivity for Battery Street. I think really and truly I think this can be hammered out. Mr. Kayley, Mr. Traymaker, I think this can be hammered out with staff and engineering. I'm fine with all this. I just want to mention something that is on our side. Not only do we have stone walls and a paved trail, but we've got a smokehouse that's back there and we've got a stone barn that's really cool and we've got a silo and we're trying to to have as much flexibility as we can and line up the streets so that we don't destroy those we think they're something we want to preserve long term so just work with us as best you can so that we don't have to go in there and just start knocking stuff down i think i think we are uh i think you know like i said work a little bit harder with staff and bring it back to us and and i think we can make it work i'm okay thank you sir um now that where are we mr parliamentarian do we have a motion on the floor we do have a motion on the floor for continuation and one needs to do the call for the question motion has been made and seconded for a continuation of Plan 2012-113, Tuscany, Unit 9. If you're going to continue it, you need to get a date until when? It continued December 13th. Everybody agreeable with that? Can it be done? At this point in time, let's go with December 13th. Make everybody go to work, I guess. Thank you. So, motion's been made for a continuation until December 13th. It has been seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion for continuation passes. Thank you, folks. Everybody ready to continue on? We've got Final Development Plan 2012-83 Lexington Medical Arts Professional, Incorporated Lot 3. This is a continuation. And I believe our staff will tell us that it has gone to the Board of Adjustment, received Board of Adjustment conditional approval. Mr. Taylor, I think, might be leading us through this with a few conditions from Board of Adjustment. We do have a revision, which is on the green sheet in front of you. Also in front of you are minutes from our last meeting. Right. Mr. Taylor. Right. This next item is on page 3 under item number 3, item A, plan DP 2012-83, Lexington Medical Arts Professional Incorporated, lot 3. And this is for property located at 2368 Professional Heights Drive. It's located off of Nicholsville Road to the front, to the left here, between East Lowry and Malibu. This is the Trader Joe's grocery store. It's recently opened in this corner. These are B1 zone and buildings here, professional office buildings in the B1 zone here, as well as a professional office building back here. This is a detention area. This plan does propose a four-story, 105-room extended stay hotel on this site with the parking shown here. the planning commission postponed this item or continued this item at their last meeting pending the board of adjustment action that plan or their the conditional use was approved on october 26th the applicant did submit to us a revised plan reflecting the conditions that the board of adjustment added to the plan what you see in front of you on the green sheet is a revised set of conditions where many of the cleanup items were addressed. Condition number 9 and 10, or number 9, was the same from the previous plan, was to identify the stormwater basin location on the northeast corner of the extended stay hotel lot. There are stormwater features back in this corner of the property. It is indicated through the stormwater plan that small basin area may be required here. They do show an exercise track, walking track through the property. There may be some tweaking of that to engineering's approval of where that walking trail can go subject to whatever stormwater infrastructure goes in this area. So that's the reason for number nine. I'm sorry, that was number ten. Number nine is the condition to denote that area and identify it. Number ten is to approve the location of that walking track subject to that stormwater infrastructure. Number eleven is to dimension the storage building. That is a building on the development plan that would need dimensions. Number 12 is condition number 6 from the BOA approval to denote that the open space and TPAs will not be substantially altered by an amended final development plan without prior approval of the Board of Adjustment. That was one of the conditions the Board placed on the plan. It's slightly unusual, and we wanted to make sure that that one condition was added back. The substantial changes from the plan that you saw last month, there was a row of parking that faced the residential area here. That parking's gone. The walking path is a little closer, further away from the residential area. The dumpster has been relocated from back in this corner up closer to the building, and those are the primary changes to the development plan. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Questions for Mr. Taylor? If not, yes, we do. I have a question about the property. There's a big, isn't it a baroque that's on site? And I guess the Board of Adjustment considered the alignment of buildings with respect to that tree? That's correct. That's this one right here. And there hasn't been a change to that TPA or to the location of the buildings. So there was no concern related to the TPAs of those two trees. Okay, thanks. Mr. Taylor, any conditions that the Board of Adjustment actually put on this? There were additional conditions. The only one that was not added to the plan that staff felt was important is number 12 that we've asked to be added. They have added other conditions related to fencing and trees, buffering, the wood fence, lighting, things like that. All of those notes that the BOA approved have gone on the plan. There was basically one remaining that the staff wanted added. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Taylor? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here today. I represent Cohen Investments, and with me today are some of the others on the team, Roger Leidenberger, the engineer, Vince Severance, who's the stormwater expert, and Jeff Stidham, who's the local representative of the developer, and Dave Leonard, our arborist. And Mrs. Phillips, you asked a question about the bur oak. Dave Leonard is here and is fully prepared to talk about how this tree, and there's another bur oak tree also that will be preserved, But basically, we have far less impervious area. We've pulled it back from there to allow those burr oaks and the other landscaping to really thrive. And Dave can tell you about that. We're also going to plant a little tree garden in the back by this detention area to help additionally with the stormwater as well as make it more attractive. I want to thank the neighbors because the neighbors helped make this a much better plan, and I promised Bill McAtee, who's the president of the Neighborhood Association, that I would hand out and ask you to direct the staff to put those conditions that the Board of Adjustment approved and we fully agree with into the file so that there will be no mistake about exactly what we've agreed to and our intentions to make this a quality development. With that, I just want to say that we agree with all the conditions on the green sheet and request your approval. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Westover? Mr. Taylor? I need to clarify one thing. I said there are 12 conditions that she's handed out that were approved by the board. Not all 12 of them are on this plan. The ones that are development plan related have been added to this plan, about four or five of them. The rest of them are standard approvals and procedures and things that don't necessarily relate to a development plan. But all the relevant development plan notes have been added, aside from the one the staff has recommended be added under condition 12. Mr. Teggert, let me ask you this. Having heard what Ms. Westover said and agreed to, as far as neighborhood concerns, making sure this was entered in the records and so forth, would it be appropriate to add language to number 12 or something, denoting all conditions approved by the Board of Adjustment? There is a note on this plan already that does relate to that the plan was approved by the Board of Adjustment, the case number and the date. It does reflect back to it, and this is a recorded document at the clerk's office. All right. Very good. Any questions from the commission? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion from the commission members and or motion. Ms. Phillips? Mr. Chair, I move approval of DP 2012-83 for the reasons recommended by staff on the green sheet. Second. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Cravens for approval of DP 2012-83, Lexington Medical Arts Professional Incorporated, Lot 3 amended. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you very much. Next plan would be Chesapeake, Equine, I believe. Are we down to that? New market was postponed. Marked property was on the Kassin agenda. Ms. Golf. Good afternoon. If you want to turn to the bottom of page 5, we have DP 2012-97 Chesapeake Equine. This is a portion of property located off of Greendale, where Greendale used to have the curve. This is the proposed right-of-way for Greendale going up to Citation Boulevard. This portion is supposed to be at a later time built. We're not sure when that actually is. We have a railroad coming down on the east side of the property. This property is zoned R3. They have approximately 27 plus acres. They wanted to do a development with using townhomes and apartments with inside this layout. We have the first 10 conditions are standard sign-off conditions. The rest are pretty much cleanup conditions. We have two on the second page. We have record flat designations, street and access easement cross sections. We don't have a cross section on this plan or the easements if there are access easements or not to mention, so we need to have that information. Conditional zoning. When this plan was rezoned, there was conditional zoning set forth that there be a 15-foot landscape buffer along the south part of the property. but this property is being developed as a group residential, so there is a 20-foot setback, so we need to make sure we have that. Access point to the property across Greendale. There's another development with one address or one access onto Greendale, and since this is going to be the only access point on Greendale, We'd like to see where that is to see how they line up or if there's a shift in the access. I mentioned the clubhouse building, delete right away for a cul-de-sac. Since this is a group residential, they have proposed a cul-de-sac, and they're calling it for dedicated right away into the property. This is Greendale, and they proposed to dedicate this as right-of-way, but since this is within the project, we'd rather see it as a private street or an access easement. Resolve the access to the Greendale for this purpose. We have a 100-foot KU transmission running along the railroad, and they're building envelopes for some of the apartment complexes are overlapping within that easement, so we'd like to remove that conflict. Delineate the pond or detention basin. They have a low portion on the property. With this being 27 acres, we'd like to know where that basin is and how large it is. The last condition, because this is a late plane, was to be reviewed by the technical committee. With that, if you have any questions. Questions for Ms. Gall? Yes, sir? I'm sorry. I just don't, you know, I had to leave early at our subdivision meeting I don't understand how this plan wound up on the consent agenda for several reasons. Number one is there's 21 conditions. Number two, it has to be reviewed by the technical committee. I don't understand why that wasn't done before we got it. And the third thing is where you've got an access problem, where you're talking about a dedicated street, I don't understand how that got on the consent agenda. So those are the three items that I'd like to know what we're dealing with here and why. Another question from Ms. Phillips. Well, I was going to ask about the technical review, and Cheryl answered saying that it was a late file. It was a late file. The late file deadline is the same day as text, so therefore we did not have this reviewed. We received it on that day, so we had it reviewed for the committee meeting. What if it goes back to technical and they don't like something, then they'll have to bring a change back to us. So it seems really a moot point to bring it to technical after the Planning Commission has seen it. It seems like we've got the cart before the horse, or the horse after the cart. The cart before the horse would be appropriate. You were right the first time. As far as with Mr. Penn, it's typically when we have a plan that does not have any discussion questions, that's when they pose to have it on the consent agenda. As far as our going to the technical meeting, this is just a process that the plans have been, if they are late filed, they miss that meeting, and then it's up to we propose to approve this plan, from your committee meeting, and so now we're moving it with that proposal for approval. And so now it has to go back for their final technical, for their final comments. So what happens if the technical committee finds something? Do you all just resolve it, or what happens? They'll have to resolve it, yes. They'll have to work that out. I just don't think this is a good process. And I'm more about process here than I am about, you know, you raised three items here that we don't know what the answer is. And one of them is how it's going to line up across Greendale Road with their exit. And the other thing is, you know, I know it's a late file, but that's not our fault. We didn't late file it. Yes, sir. So, you know, I'm not trying to beat up on you. I just don't know how it got on the consent agenda, and I don't understand why that we should not stick to our process and let the technical review it. If they don't have any issues, then we'll review the plan. Somebody needs to tell me why that's not a good plan. Mr. Penn, I can elaborate a little bit. The process for late plans does allow changes to the plan that might otherwise qualify as minor amendments. A minor amendment would not allow any additional square footage. It would not allow the access point to shift more than 25 feet in either direction. It would not allow any parking surpluses to be deleted. So those types of changes can be done from the technical committee review of this plan. Any review comments that were more coordination, say, between the utility companies and the different divisions there of mechanic government, those could likely be done on this plan as well, again, provided they meet those parameters. What the staff would not do would be allow any of those types of changes, short of, say, a significant sign-off from the State Highway Department on access or something like that, to allow to be changed. What we found with late plans going to the technical committee is often this coordination function that they have as well is very beneficial for the utility companies. Most of the divisions of the urban county government have seen this plan and reviewed it, but it allows that coordination to happen as well. We very seldom see a plan with 21 conditions on a consent agenda. We just don't see that. I'm not arguing the plan's right or wrong. It just struck me as odd that suppose that you don't, the connection doesn't work across the road, and it's really on one way in, one way out of there. What happens to it? Right. The minor amendment rules would allow a shift of up to 25 feet in either direction, and that's where the staff was hoping that that resolved condition would line those up. Suppose it doesn't, would it? It doesn't. Then this plan might have to come back for continued discussion. Okay. Which is to your point exactly. And you're right. There are very seldom plans with 21 conditions on your consent agenda. Let me add this, and not to throw anyone under the bus, so to speak, But in seeing this in subdivision, I believe Mr. Cayley did have answers. And I felt like that we would have a revision here at this point in time that could go forward. Without a revision, I'm reluctant for, as far as my thoughts is concerned, to move this thing forward. That's up to the Commission. Those are my thoughts. You know, I do not like, you know, the fact that we've got several items that need to be addressed. And, you know, I think they're easily fixed. It's just the fact that they need to be fixed. Mr. Cayley, or Mr. Cayley, Ms. Wiseman. Sorry to bring you down here, Ms. Wiseman. I'm always very happy to be here. Thank you. I'm here for Ball Homes along with Rory. We filed it as a late plan that is permitted under your rules and procedures, and you filed a triple filing fee for the privilege of filing it late. Given the time of year, we filed a triple filing fee because we wanted this plan considered and approved by the end of 2012. It wasn't in time to be fully presented to the technical committee, but it was shown to the technical committee. I understand your process and your own concerns about what's on the consent decree and not. Our interest is presenting a plan that you can approve with conditions, which is what you do on most of your plans. There are conditions that have to be satisfied before you get, and typically those are sign-offs from your various divisions. That is a lot of what the technical committee does because those folks sit at the technical committee. So we will have this back at the technical committee. There aren't any issues that are resolved or discussed like some of the other plans. They are more the nature of cleanup. Since we were at the subdivision committee, for example, we now have the information that we need to clarify the access point because now we have access to the development plan for the property across Greendale Road. So we now have that, and we can satisfy the condition of number 14. We said at the subdivision committee that we were making with respect to number 17 that entrance a private street. So the committee left that as either or, but that's our intention to show that as a private street. So that would resolve 17. That also resolves number 18. The issue there is the fact that that is the future location of Greendale Road. The right-of-way is there, but the road's not there. And that is just to acknowledge that situation and refer to the access across the road based on that other development plan. I mean, I can go through the others. We know what the conditional zoning restriction is. It has to do with the 15-foot landscape buffer on the southern portion of the property to add that note. Add a record plat designation and add the dimensions to the clubhouse building and then the 20-foot setback. So those are conditions that can be satisfied. We would ask that you approve this today. you did remove it from the consent agenda, which we have no objection to. Now we're on the hearing agenda, and it's an approvable plan, and we would ask that you approve it based on these conditions that have been set forth, no different than the other plan that you have. Only the other additional condition is that the technical committee will see it after you. And again, those will primarily be in the natures of sign-offs, which is what we would do in a normal course anyway. We'd take it to traffic, we'd take it to engineering, and so on. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I wanted to explain why we filed it and paid the fee. It was because we wanted to give ourselves a little hedge time in case there was a problem. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Any questions for Ms. Wiseman? seeing none i'll ask if there's anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan seeing no one i'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for a discussion and or a motion mr cravens yeah i mean i can make a motion is there any more discussion I would move approval of DP 2012-97 based on the fact that it was the subdivision committee, you know, reviewed it, and they approved it enough to put it on the consent agenda. And Ms. Wiseman did explain some of these conditions that are on here. and I see no reason to go against our own procedures. I mean, if we don't want any more late plans, then we need to take it out of the ordinance. But the technical committee will review it. And it's also a group residential, is that right? Yeah, so that's a little more permissive in some cases. So I move approval. Motion has been made for approval of Plan 2012-97. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Mr. Penn, discussion? I'm not going to vote against this, but I just don't see any reason for us to keep having 20-21 conditions on a plan that comes here, and there is a resolve. Number 18 is resolve. So, you know, we'll forget about the consent agenda. But I just think going forward, we really shouldn't be reviewing plans. I'll concede that it is a late file. But still, as a general rule, I don't think we ought to see plans that haven't been seen by the technical committee. I think it's just bad planning. And I'm not going to hold it up. If you all want to approve it, that's fine. But to say there is no resolve, there is, it's number 18. And that's all I have to say about it. I've said too much about it now. Ms. Beatty? I would like to support and echo what Mr. Penn has said, only because I'm on the subdivision committee. And we have had discussions in subdivision committee numerous times about the number of conditions as well as asking questions periodically about late plans and the amount of information that can come to us if it has already been reviewed by technical. So I do understand and support what Mr. Penn is saying, even though I am on the subdivision committee. I think we need to go back and maybe just be a little more diligent in reviewing those plans and committee before we have a hearing. But I certainly agree with Ms. Wiseman. I think we have to support this in light that the subdivision committee reviewed it and supported it at that point. Thank you. Mr. Wilson? Yeah, I agree with you in principle, but the one thing that I'm kind of concerned about is, is it the number of the quality of the points being made? I mean, it doesn't matter to me if they're 50. If they're, I mean, the number doesn't bother me as much as the quality of the issues. So it could be two, and if they are the key issues, then I still would want to take it off. Yes, I would definitely agree with that. It is the quality, yes. Others? And this is the discussion. We're in the discussion period. You can call for the question. I will ask for a vote here in just a second. I'm going to put my two cents worth in. I would agree, coming out of subdivision, that it was felt this was an approvable plan and could go forward with the understanding that there would be revisions. I have not seen the revisions. I would like to see the revisions. Question for staff. When this goes to technical, when will be the next date that it can go to technical? I believe it's November 28th. Excuse me? November 28th. November 28th. Ms. Wiseman indicated that this was filed as a late plan so that it could be approved and go forward by the end of the year. If it's approved November 28th, it can come back before us in December to be approved. Personally, that's what I would like to see, but it's up to the Commission. So at this point, I will call for a vote. I believe everybody's ready. And vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. So thank you, folks. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? Yes, sir. Now that the vote on that is over, I would just like to point out that this plan met every stated criteria of the commission to be heard by this board and to qualify for the consent agenda. We've had these conversations before, and I think it would be a good idea if you would like to reopen that at your next work session to talk about those criteria, if you wish to amend those criteria so that everyone involved, the staff, the applicants, and the commission knows what the rules are in order to be qualified to be heard. If you want to change them, we can go ahead and formally change them. But I would just like to make that comment, and if you would like that docketed, we will put that on for your November 29th work session. Okay, that would be fun. What I would offer, if it's okay with the legal, I guess, is let everybody respond by e-mail on whether they want to hear this or not in the work session. Is that okay? That's quite all right. As long as we publish the agenda 24 hours before the work session, as long as we know by the time we post it. But usually we try to post it at least two days before the work session. Okay. Thank you. We've got two remaining items, I think. One, thank you. One is a PFR 2012-3 Fayette County Public Schools. Let me back up. I think Mike Craven is just dying to make a motion. We do have a performance bond and letter of credit that's before you. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the release of call of bonds. Thank you. The motion has been made for the release of call of bonds and memorandum dated November 8, 2012. That is before you. Do we have a second? In seconded, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Next is the Fayette County Public School, Bryan Station High School, Dan Tower. You do have a report in front of you for this, and Ms. Rackers is going to lead us through this. Yes, hopefully. This is on page 6 of your agenda, and it's item A under Commission Items, PFR 2012, B.S. 3, and it is a request by Fayette County Public Schools to review a proposal for a permanent van tower for Bryan Station High School. The property is at 1866 Edgeworth Drive, which is between Old Paris Road and Bryan Station Road. The property is outlined in black right here. We've got Old Paris Road, Easton Road, and Bryan Station Road, and then the rest of the streets are pretty much residential streets in the neighborhood surrounding. Bill, if you could put the next, or Randy, whoever, put the next picture up, please. Thank you. and this just shows the layout of the school property. Here it is, again outlined in black, and it shows all the improvements and it shows how the surrounding properties are all developed as residential. This is a 31-acre property, and the structures on the property, it's pretty much covered by structures. There are about 295,000 square feet, almost 295,000 square feet. That includes the schools that are on the property and the buildings that are associated with sports. What they're proposing is a 45-square-foot band tower that will be about 35 feet tall, and it will be a 121-square-foot concrete base at the bottom. If you could put the map up or the site plan, please. Thank you. This shows the layout of the school and all the improvements that are on the property. Edgeworth Drive is up here. This is the bus drop-off area. This is their main parking area. And then this is the proposed location of the band tower. It will be in a grassy area between those two spots. It will be able to be accessed easily by Edgeworth Drive. And it's several feet from any of the school buildings. It was reviewed at Building Inspections commercial review, site plan review, a few weeks ago. and they don't have any problems with its location. They've said everything is okay as far as that goes. It'll be used only by the two band directors and probably three or four other staff members of the school. And then it'll be locked at all times other than the times that it's used. There won't be any students to have access to this. And then the only other person that might be able to get in or that would be able to get in would be a videography, and that would be to videotape band practices for review purposes. and that would only be when one of the band directors is present. It'll only be used during marching band season, which is from mid-July through early November. It'll be used Monday through Friday, possibly five to six times per week, three to six hours at a time, and it'll be between the hours of eight in the morning and seven in the evening. The staff has reviewed the 2007 comp plan and the 2012 goals and objectives to comply with the requirements of KRS 100 regarding compliance with the comprehensive plan. And there is nothing at all in opposition to this. The text and several goals and objectives of the 2007 plan, and those are all listed on pages 2 and 3 of your staff report, support this. And then there is only one objective in the 2012 goals and objectives because those have been greatly simplified and streamlined to apply more generally to everything in Fayette County as far as development goes. And so there's only one that really might relate to that, and that's Objective D of Theme F, Goal 1, and that's to collaborate with other agencies in Lexington and Fayette County to meet local standards in order to achieve compatible developments and accomplish the community's vision as articulated in Destination 2040. And you probably remember that in all the other public facility reviews that we've done for the Fayette County public schools, that they want to be a world-class school system by the year 2020. And that is stated in the comprehensive plan text, 2007 plan text. And they are working towards that with all of the new construction that they've done, all the new schools and the improvements to the older schools that they've done. And there is still more to come. They're, I think, planning on three or four more new schools. One would be a high school and then three, I think, middle schools, elementary or middle schools. But that is getting them towards that goal. and I think this probably is getting them towards that goal, too. It's not on the same scale, by any means, as the other improvements that they've done to their school properties, but it's still getting them towards that goal of being a world-class school system. And it can also be considered one aspect of their state-of-the-art facilities that they want to have, and that's also been referenced in the comprehensive plan. So in summary, we find this to be in compliance with the plan, and even though they're exempt from zoning, they aren't exempt from building code requirements, state building code requirements, and therefore we recommend that any construction of the tower be reviewed by building inspection for health safety purposes and that they get any applicable permits from building inspection if building inspection will issue permits and that they go through the review process before they occupy the band structure. If you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to answer them. Mr. Andrew Moore is here from the architect's office that designed this, and he is also here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Rackers? No. Do you have a question, or are you ready to go? I'm going to make a motion. Okay. As an alumni at Bryan Station. Do you want to let Mr. Moore say anything? I had a previous orchestra member. Of course, we didn't need bandstand when we were in the orchestra. Anyway, I'm going to move approval of this. Subject of staff recommendations? Of the staff, yeah. PFR 2012-3. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore, for being here and being patient with us. Mr. Craigness in the fight zone. Oh, Lord. No, let's not go there. Mr. King, anything to add? Any staff items? Mr. King? Nothing. Any commission items? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment and seconded. All in favor, please stand. Thank you.