I'm sorry. They're picking up the prisoners And putting them in a pen And all she wants to do is dance, dance Rebels been rebels Since I don't know when And all she wants to do is dance A volatile cocktail, a local drink And all she wants to do is dance, dance And mix them up right from the kitchen sink And all she wants to do is dance Crazy people walking round with blood in their eyes And all she wants to do is dance, dance, dance While that pistol wavers, she ain't afraid to die And all she wants to do is, all she wants to do is dance And look at her lips She can't feel the heat, coming off the street She wants to party, she wants to get down All she wants to do is, all she wants to do is dance Well, the government burned the men's room In a local disco lounge And all she wants to do is dance, dance To keep the boys from selling all the weapons that could scrounge And all she wants to do is dance Now, that don't keep the boys from making a buck or two And all she wants to do is dance, dance They still can sell the army All the drugs that they can do And all she wants to do is All she wants to do is dance And make romance Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to wish everyone a very happy Valentine's Day. It's February 14th. I will call the meeting to order, and I do not believe we have any minutes to approve. So at this time, I'll ask for any postponements or withdrawals from the agenda. members commission my name is sarah tuttle on page five at the bottom letter d dp 2013-6 the sam's property we recommend a one we would ask for a one month postponement for that please Thank you. I'm sorry. Do we have a date for that one month postponement? Mr. Chairman, your meeting in March for subdivision items is on the 14th. 14th. That's what you're asking for. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2013-6 Sam's property until March 14th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chair, I have a request from Mr. Kevin Murphy. His BOAR appeal, which appears on page 7 of the agenda. He's asking for a one-month postponement to March 14th. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Mr. Dick Murphy. I want to clarify, I'm representing the property owner, who is David Jones. Kevin Murphy is bringing the appeal. He's a neighbor, but even though my last name is Murphy, too, I'm representing Jones. All we need is a Smith in here to put the common last name derby on this. But anyway, Mr. Kevin Murphy told me about the death in his family yesterday, and we agreed to the postponement to March 14th. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this request? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. So moved, postponement March 14th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made in the second of the postponement of the VAR 2013-1. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Staff has received an email request from the applicant on page 4 of your agenda under development plans. Item B, ZDP 2012-76 Deerfield Shopping Center. They have requested a one-month postponement. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for postponement for one month until March 14th. So moved. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until March 14th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion for postponement passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll move on to the consent agenda and ask Mr. Salee to walk us through the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm very pleased to report that most of your remaining items on your agenda also appear on your consent agenda. The very first item on your consent agenda is also the first item on your meeting agenda, page 1, item A. This is Plan 2013-4F, a final record plat for the Glen at Lockdale Unit 4F. This is for property located at Golden Trophy Trail east of Winthrop Drive. On page 2, item C of your meeting agenda, an amended final record plat is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2013-8F, the Lexington Mall property, also known as Southland Christian Church, for property located at 2349 Richmond Road. On page 3, item E, this plat is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2013-10F, an amended final record plat for Higbee Mill Reserve, Lot 3H, for property located at 4113 Reserve Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 3, item F, Plan 2012-32F, Lockmere Estates, also known as Maple Ridge, Unit 1A, Section 1, amended. This and the next item have the same address, page 3, item G, Plan 2012-33F, Lockmere Estates, Maple Ridge, Unit 1B, Section 1, amended. Both of these properties are at 651 Childsburg Road. All of these plats have been recommended for approval, conditional approval, by your subdivision committee. There are also four development plans on your meeting agenda that appear on the consent agenda. The first one appears on page 4, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2012-89, New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit 10. This involves property at 1501 Deerhaven Lane. The staff has received the required affidavit for the signposting involving this property, and I would note that the staff has a staff report for EAMP compliance for this plan at your places. This will cover the necessary findings for that plan. On page 6, item E of your meeting agenda, another amended final development plan, DP 2013-12, plan for Morningside Market for property located at National Avenue and North Ashland Avenue. This property also requires an affidavit and a signposting, and the staff has received that affidavit, and it looks to be in order. The next item on your meeting agenda also is on the consent agenda, page 6, item F, DP2013-13, Zandale Shopping Center, an amended final development plan for property located at 2280 Nicholsville Road. The final item on your consent agenda appears on page 6, item G of your meeting agenda, DP 2013-14, Guest Property Unit 2, an amended final development plan for property located at 4001 Castle Bridge Lane. Also, the staff has received the required affidavit for that particular plan, and I would note the staff has a memo to the Commission about EAMP compliance with the necessary findings for that plan. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Commission could consider approving these plans, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would ask for these items to be pulled from the consent agenda to allow further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience wish to pull and hear any one of these items that's listed? Seeing none, any commission member wish to hear any of these items? If not, I'll entertain a motion for approval, and we would need to note the EAMP compliance with the staff reports on the two as well. End the motion. Yes, Ms. Blanton. I move approval of the consent agenda as outlined by staff, including the EAMP reports for DP2013-14 Guest Property and 2012-89 New Market Property. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and a second for the approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. We'll tend to the rest of the agenda in order, which will take us to page 2. At the top of the page is Plan 2013-7L Coldstream Research Campus, in which we do have a waiver that I think is before you on a white sheet. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is Plan 2013-7F, Coalstream Research Campus, Unit 3, Lot 7, an amended final record plat for property located at 1698 McGrathiana Parkway. The purpose of this amendment is to dedicate Tempur Way. We're located on a lot on McGrathianna Parkway, which loops from Aristides over to Citation Boulevard. It backs up to I-75, Marriott Hotel, and Newtown Pike is in this direction to the east. The purpose of this plat is solely to dedicate Tempur Way, turning off McGrathiana. The standard conditions apply. Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Building Inspection, Addressing Office, Urban Foresters, Department of Environmental Quality, and the addition of utility and streetlight easements. Additional conditions include denote the property address and the title block, remove easements shown in the street rights-of-way, number the general notes in sequential order per Article 5-4F. This is provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver to Article 4-7D1, Certification of Substantial Completion, and resolve the applicability of Note 27 on Certified DP 2011-79 related to the dedication of temporary way. This plat, in fact, does just that. So the question becomes just how applicable is that note? And with that, we'll take your comments and questions. The subdivision committee and staff recommended approval. Excuse me, any questions? Okay. At this point in time, I will turn it over to Mr. Martin to address the waiver that applies to this property. Thank you. Mr. Martin, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. As you can see on your agenda, there is a waiver request that is connected with this plat that you see before you today. It is a request to waive Article 4-7D-9 of your subdivision regulations, which governs the posting of a surety or a bond to warrant the construction of the public facilities or public infrastructure necessary to this development and required by your subdivision regulations, of course, before a lot can be created. The situation that affects these properties is actually quite simple, and it's contained in your report, and that is the University of Kentucky as a state entity cannot issue sureties or bonds. they aren't allowed to, so they can't. And what they do is when they do these improvements and build this infrastructure, they use their contractual obligations and the way that they construct their documents and run their projects. They have a warranty period. They require that these things be done and done correctly. This is similar to a waiver request that has been requested of this body before. that was granted, and in fact, on your agenda, there is a similar waiver request for Coldstream as well. The staff has recommended approval of this waiver. We would just point out, so you'll know again, as was explained, the purpose is to build Tempur-Pedic to this point and dedicate it. In the future, this will have to terminate correctly as a cul-de-sac. You've seen a development plan here for Tempur-Pedic headquarters that showed this as future construction. Subsequently, in December, you approved a development plan for Lot 7 that showed the cul-de-sac. Then, you may recall, there was a circle in development off of that cul-de-sac. So this is phased construction is what you see before you. And again, staff is confident that the intent of the subdivision regulations will be met. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes. Why is the U.K. being asked to post the surety when it's Tempur-Pedic's development project? I can't get into the details of the land arrangements on these projects, But Coldstream, I think some property, and the applicants represented, maybe will answer this. But I don't know that they sell property, they lease it, and so ownership is maintained by, in effect, the state of Kentucky. Except when we dedicate the streets, and then the street rights have become the property of the urban county government. But nothing else does. the rest of it is held in fee by the Commonwealth for the use and benefit of the university. Thank you, Ms. Tuttle. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, Ms. Tuttle, do you have anything to add? Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any comments, discussion. Mr. Brewer. Staffs provided. Motion was seconded. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next, at the bottom of page two, is Plan 2013-9 Elf, Forest Park Edition. You do have some printed material on a white sheet. Also, a couple of drawings before you. Thank you. Mr. Markham. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I am going to take a photograph over to our technical folks real quick. The item on your agenda is Plan 2013-9, Forest Park Edition, Block E. It is a final record plat that is two lots, and they're proposing a subdivision into three lots. It is located at the corner of Waller Avenue and of Elizabeth Street. The photograph that you see on your screen shows you an overview of this proposed subdivision. The area, you can see the two streets that front on Waller, that is to the top of the photograph, with Elizabeth Street to my right, to your left. I mean to the right on the screen, thank you. and you can see the parking, the aprons, the sidewalk, the structures associated with this particular subdivision. The zone in question for this property is R2. It's a duplex zone. You can see outlined in here the outside boundaries of the proposed lotting. They are proposing to drop a lot line here, creating lot 1, lot 2, lot 3. These two lots are 6,000 square feet minimum. There's 60 feet of frontage here. This lot has over 100 feet of frontage on Elizabeth and less than 60 feet, approximately 45 to 50 feet of frontage along Waller. Again, here's your intersection with the light, with Elizabeth, and here's Waller. There's driveway access to this lot from Waller. Here, as you saw in the photograph, is the large apron on Elizabeth. This will be a shared access to Lot 1 and to Lot 2. Highlighted for you is the existing 30-foot setback on these properties. In the case of Lot 1, you can see the existing structure is obviously a nonconforming structure in that it crosses over the building line. It was platted this way in 1919, by the way, and that's when the lot line was created. This house and even this house here, they extend across that 30-foot building line. Here is the setback as it extends across the proposed lot number three. Now, lot number three is proposed to be 76,600 square feet. under R2 that does meet the minimum square footage, and it has the frontage for an R2 lot, which will require... Mr. Martin, you said 76,000? Did I? 7,600. Pardon me. Okay. 7,600. Okay, thank you. A large duplex lot. Very large. Large duplex. No. 7,600. Thank you. And the 6,000 square feet lots are the minimum that you can do under R2 for R1D single family. That's one of the interesting things about this subdivision that you see before you, is that under the R2 zone, you are allowed to develop a single family home meeting the standards of the R1D zone. So that is allowed. That's what they are proposing at this location. The staff has prepared a handout in yellow for you of revised recommendations on this. The plan was initially recommended by the subdivision committee for postponement, and that was the recommendation of the technical committee and the staff at that time. We did receive a revised plan that addressed some conditions, some concerns, cleanup conditions, that sort of thing, on the plan. The overriding concern that staff had and the reason for recommended postponement is that the plan, as presented to you, does not meet the requirements of the land subdivision regulations, Article 6-4B. And that's been handed out to you on an exhibit, which you'll find with a legal-sized piece of paper associated with it, and it highlights that sub-revision regulation. That sub-revision, excuse me, that regulation basically says that very irregular-shaped lots pointed, they should be avoided where possible. It's not an absolute. However, as you all are aware, we try to encourage, our ordinance requires, and encourages geometric shapes, uniform shapes as much as possible. And in this particular case, we don't believe that this particular layout as proposed meets that, and that was our reason for postponement, our primary reason. In addition to that concern, there were, of course, some concerns with whether or not the function of these properties would work under this layout as well, relative to some parking issues, nonconforming structures, and those setbacks, of course, are always a concern. Staff reviewed this and decided that we could recommend approval of this plan. However, it would require an adjustment to the plan. And we've handed that out to you as well. And that's on the back side. And I'll show you here. Very simply, we believe that if you take this property line on lot one and extend it right back through here, then this is an approvable plan. However, in doing so, you'll have a single family lot, R1D, single family home, R1D, single family home, R1D. They will not be able to build a duplex on this lot with that particular modification. And you can see that in your handout when we recommend approval. So adjust the lot line and denote that there will be single-family homes on each of these lots. Staff does have and hand it out to you, if it was necessary to have the discussion and consider alternatives, we have briefly reviewed a possible layout that we think would better meet the intent of the subdivision regulations. We have not seen anything along those lines from the applicant. We've not had a discussion with them concerning this. So at this time, staff is recommending approval subject to those conditions that you see before you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Beatty, she chimed in first. Mr. Martin, in subdivision we were talking about the way that the lots were initially designated. That offset was to be parking. Yes, ma'am. So now that if the lot lines change and it becomes a single-family dwelling, is that not an issue, or what are they proposing for parking? Well, parking could very well be an issue. I did prepare a handout. I haven't distributed it, but it does give a parking breakdown for you. So on Lot 1, parking in the infill and redevelopment, the minimum required on Lot 1 is 1. The minimum required on Lot 2 is 1. The minimum required on Lot 3 is 4. and staff is fairly confident they could meet those minimums on the lots because you're allowed to park in the driveway, for instance, once you're behind the building line. And that's an important consideration. In the infill and redevelopment area, all parking required and additional parking has to be behind the building line. There's a photograph that I have. I believe it's the second one. If you put that up, let me see. will help illustrate this particular issue. There you go. The heavy blue line that you see, that is lot three superimposed on the existing situation. You can see the backyards. You can see where the parking will have to be located to the interior when you view this area. One of the issues that affects parking is that you have maximum parking in the IR. So if you want additional parking on your property, You are allowed, but the IR limits that to 50%. So the maximum parking is 2. Maximum parking is 2. Maximum parking is 6. However, again, and on your handout, you've got your parking regulations. If you look under required parking in the second column, it's under the IR. It's under paragraph 7. You go to paragraph 8, and paragraph 8 states that when you have restricted frontage, you're allowed one additional parking space. If you'll go to the next picture, please. It's hard to see in that picture, but you can see a yellow line on that curb all the way down the Elizabeth Street frontage. Waller Street is restricted as well. So both of these frontages are restricted. So this lot with double frontage actually is allowed two more parking spaces, and it gets a total of four. Lot two gets a total of three, and lot three gets a total of seven. There's 14 parking spaces that are to be accommodated on these three lots behind the building line. so that's an ancillary issue but it is an issue obviously that would have to be addressed and they would have to meet again they may very well be able to we've not seen anything to that effect but again Mr. Berkley How many do we know how many bedrooms I know lot one I think they said there were five At the subdivision committee I believe the applicant stated there were one building was remodeled from seven to five and that's on lot one the duplex can legally have four bedrooms in each unit for a total of eight. We're not aware of how many bedrooms exist on lot two in that particular house. So you can see that there is maximum parking allowed. There appears there may be more demand for parking than the maximum could meet. That is a concern to the use and it's It's obviously an enforcement concern for this particular property. Mr. Cravens? Tom, is there a sewer on this lot? No, sir. But as you may recall from the previous lot split that created the lot right here, they had to run their sewer across that property to Forest Park. here is the easement that will be created that will allow this lot to have its lateral run to Waller Avenue. There is sewer available. It's just a matter of putting that in the easement. On that building line, aren't they allowed to match up with existing houses? Can they encroach that with the new building? So that is, the new buildings both encroach. You mean with the new building, could they line up? Well, this new lot, 1343, are they allowed to bring that in line with the building on the side? There is a provision that would allow them to meet the lineup so that there could be a slight adjustment. But again, we would like to review those situations further in regards to the geometric layout of the property. So they might not have to sit it back 30 feet. They might sit back 15 or 20. There might be able to be adjustment along those particular provisions that would allow that. If you do that, what does that do to the parking? I don't know. I'd have to review that. That's part of our problem. And I would add that that particular provision applies to existing lots to allow them to adapt and deal with the these are three new lots that are being proposed under the subdivision regulation, so it may not apply. Ms. Mundy? If I remember correctly, from the subdivision committee also, there was some discussion of straightening or not straightening the sidewalk. And with this new alignment of the lots, I just wanted to be sure where that lies with regard to, I mean, I know the applicant was very willing to work with the city and deal with that. I just want to be sure that's all in place. That has been discussed, and it's staff's understanding that they are willing to work and line that up correctly. And, of course, a four-foot sidewalk is required as opposed to three feet. So it's staff's understanding they are willing to deal with that issue. Yes. Ms. Phillips. I'm trying to understand all of this. This was all one big lot, and we're now creating three lots. It is two lots being proposed to be subdivided into three lots. Can you show me the alignment of the existing two lots, please? It's basically, this is their outline, and there's a lot line that subdivides them through here. So the lot line for lot two has come closer to lot one? It's a slight adjustment, yes. And there's a driveway right here. We're taking the rear yards and making a separate lot from it? In effect, they are taking the rear yards to create this lot, yes, ma'am. Okay. And that had been, there had been a house there, I assume, and that's what the circuit would drive? No, there was not anything there. In 1919, again, when this was lotted, they were all nice, long, rectangular lots. And in general, they've all been developed as single-family homes or duplexes, that sort of thing, with their orientation to Waller. The exact same case happened here, you may recall, with Forest Park. That was a R1C lot, I believe. They cut out a rear lot. There had never been anything there. They just had enough lot size to create a lot. And that is what they wish to do here. It seems like we are trying to improve the situation for Lot 3. which also subsequently improves the situation for lot two but lot one um you know are we making a i guess if the existing lot line was just a little bit farther to the west i suppose to the northwest are we creating a situation where that lot could not be rebuilt this lot if this house was removed they could go back on the footprint they couldn't enlarge it in in any way as a nonconforming structure. If they wanted to build new, move anything around, they would have to seek relief on the building line from the Board of Adjustment. Well, that's my concern is that, you know, the Board of Adjustment would have to get involved. And finally, if there's a maximum of 14 cars per parking, given the geography of this lot, I would imagine that the developer is hoping to maximize the numbers of bedrooms so that we can put 14 cars, but where are you going to put 14 cars there? Again, without seeing a layout and exhibit on how they propose to do, I think if you look at the photograph, you look at the lot line, and you understand they have to locate them behind here, you're going to see parking generally in this area would be staff's estimation. So lot 3's parking can encroach on lot 2? Lot 1's parking can happen on lot 3? It cannot. They have to be contained. There are setback requirements, et cetera. Now, there may be some relief available to them with easements and that sort of thing, but again, staff's not been able to work with the applicant to see how they propose that to work. And one last question, and I'm not sure who can answer this, but with respect to the student housing task force and the new rules that were imposed, How many bedrooms, how many individuals could reside in the new structure that presumably will be built on Lot 3? They could have four bedrooms in each unit and occupied by one person. So you could have eight individuals living in the duplex. Okay. Thank you. Other questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, just I think to clarify, clear up two things. One, the corner lot where the house is presently, which would become a nonconforming structure, is what you said. Changing these lot lines, is that what will make it nonconforming? Is it conforming presently? It is not a conforming structure presently because it encroaches over the platted building lines. Okay. All right. And then the second thing is on this drawing that you have before us, I just want to clarify. It's showing 6,000 square feet, 6,000 square feet, 7,660 square feet. You've moved the line. The 7,660 square feet, I presume, is dropping? It would reduce lot three to below that square foot. So the way it's drawn, that number's not correct. This was to demonstrate to you staff's recommendation of approval. I just wanted to clarify the way it's drawn now, those numbers are not correct. So we'd have to adjust the numbers a little bit. Yes. Mr. Brewer. I'm sorry. Can you put me over here? I want to follow up with what Mike said. It sounds like he knows what he was talking about, but I don't understand this. So if we go with this as you've recommended, the lot one to the east side there, That part could be drawn down and the house on lot three could be nonconforming to the same extent in front lining up with that other house? No, it could not. Okay, so what was that comment then? There is a provision for averaging when houses are aligned within a street. That's for existing lots, where if you want to build a house on an existing lot, you're allowed to meet the setback on the lots to either side. That's for existing lots. No, this is not an existing lot. They're attempting to create this lot. So that's the subregs that apply rather than that particular infill provision. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. One more question. It's pretty complicated. Yes, ma'am. The lot three. So the R2 zoning allows R1D? Yes, ma'am. Is it setbacks? Is it uses? It is. What is it? Both. It allows R1D as a single-family home with the appropriate setbacks under R1D. Yes. Very simply put, you can own an R2 lot and develop it as an R1D lot if you meet the requirements of R1D. So given the new configuration proposed by staff, does that new lot meet the R1D criteria? Yes, all three of these lots would meet the R1D. Yes, ma'am. Okay. But do they still meet the R2 criteria? Not in terms of being allowed to put a duplex on it. That's what my question is. Yes, ma'am. So lot three, you had said potentially eight bedrooms. Is it really going to be eight bedrooms on that lot? That was the information we received at Subdivision Committee, yes. Four bedrooms per unit, two units, eight bedrooms. I think to answer your question, though, if it were only a single-family home, it would be limited to the occupancy of four unrelated persons or for a family. You wouldn't expect eight bedrooms in a single-family home ordinarily. So the leniency is to allow single family, but it's not a reciprocal backward and forward relationship that you can never mind. Right. No. He could still build a duplex there. If he wants eight bedrooms, he needs a duplex. Got it. Yes. Ms. Blanton? So if we go with the staff recommendation of squaring off the lot lines and it only being a single family, Does this required parking then change? Or why is Lot 3? It would, yes, ma'am, because the requirements change relative to that single-family use. Ms. Plumlee? So with eight bedrooms, you have the potential for 16 cars. I don't believe you're allowed two people, and I think the new ordinance governs four unrelated folks, so I think it would only be eight residents. is there would be eight cars. And again, they could put seven parking spaces on that property would be the maximum. Okay, thank you, Mr. Martin. At this time, I think we'll ask for the applicant to come forward, and I'm sure Mr. Martin will be available later for more questions if needed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing Craig Hardin today. Craig is with me today, and also with me is Paul Lee of Studio A Architecture, who's next to Craig, and Wes Witt, our surveyor. And thank you all. We wanted to discuss this with you a little bit. We just got the recommendation at 12 noon today that the staff had an issue with Lot 3, the configuration of it, and that they were going to ask us to do a single-family house instead of a duplex on here. And so we really haven't had a chance to go through all those options, and it may be that I will ask you to postpone this. But we had today the architect and the surveyor here along with Mr. Harden. We wanted to tell you what the thinking behind this was. And we may not need to postpone it, but if we do, we understand we may need to postpone it. And I think the staff was assuming that I would come meet with them this week to discuss the lot configuration. After the subdivision committee, I didn't think there was an issue with the lot configuration. We talked about that. Somebody seemed to be okay with that. So staff, that's why I did not come to meet with you because I didn't know there was a problem. But we got the new recommendation at 12 noon today, so we're still trying to react to that. But it's important for you all to know the background of this and where we're coming from. Craig owns the properties at 200 and 202, which you can see on the exhibit up here. And just to show you some pictures, we got the PVA pictures. This is, I guess when the PVA took this, they were doing some road construction. This is the property at 200, right on the corner, which Craig has, by the way, when he bought it, he's owned these about two years, I think. This was a triplex, seven bedrooms. He's remodeled it, renovated it, keep it within the boundaries of the existing house. It's now a single-family house, five bedrooms. So he took it from a triplex with seven bedrooms to a single family with five bedrooms after he got it. The next picture is the house at 202. This is the single family house, which I think has five bedrooms in it right now. Craig bought this a couple years ago as well. And then the third picture, I just want to let you know, Craig owns the one on the other corner. This is on the other corner of Elizabeth Street. This is the existing house, which is there. Two more pictures, and before we put them up, Craig does not own these two properties. Go ahead and put them up there. This one is the one immediately behind. I think it's the one, I've got my map here somewhere, 1351, which is right behind. This is the one on the lot, which you all approved about a year ago after a very protracted hearing. We got that up. I see some of you shaking your heads, and I think we've shaken our heads at it too. This house is one that has, I think we have to say, very little architectural interest in it. And Craig is not going to build a house like that. That's why we brought Paul Lee here, the architect. This will be an architect-designed house, which will go in the house with a lot which is immediately just right of this. So this is an example of what will not be going on this lot. The last lot is also one not owned by Craig. This is across the street, 1350 Elizabeth Street. This was built about 30 years ago in the 80s again as well. So again, Craig's will be architecturally designed. So that's all for those if you want to take those down. On the particular matters on this, the lot one, If you could go back to the staff's marked-up exhibit of the plant. Well, that's not the one we've submitted. The other one that they had up there that is the submitted plant, which I've got here. There we go. Okay. What we have here, we have to remember, is two lots zoned R2. Right now they happen to have two single-family houses on them, partly because Craig has redone this one from a triplex to a duplex. But there's two lots zoned R2. Now, triplex to a single family. There were originally three-and-a-half lots on this. When this was platted in 1919, there was three-and-a-half lots. As you can see from your staff agenda, this is block E, lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. It's actually half of 4. 1, the lot line, you can see it very faintly. It was right there. Lot 2, here's the lot line for that one. Lot 3, you can see it faintly is there. That's lot 3. And lot 4 is over here. They actually bought three-fifths of lot 4 for this house over here. So it started out as 3 1⁄2 lots. It's zoned R2. Right now, as it is today, it's two lots. So you could put two duplexes on these two lots. They each have enough square footage to put a duplex on each lot. And in looking over the options for working on this, I just want to tell you what the thinking on this was. This house theoretically could be duplexed, I suppose, without doing it. It would be problematic. They'd be coming over here. Possibly it could. This one on 202 could be easily duplexed by putting an addition on the rear without going through you all, just getting a building permit for it because the lot meets all the configuration requirements right now, the size, the setbacks, and everything. If you've been out there looking at it, you know that right next door here at 204, the owner has recently torn down. This is not Craig again. This is somebody else. He has torn down one of the older houses, the nice older houses, and is going to put up a new duplex on that lot. So it's being done right next door. Next door to that, the next one after that, if you've been out there, you can see it's the subject of one of the vinyl box additions. It's a long, narrow, what was a single-family house done before the big ordinance change, about three years ago, which stopped vinyl box editions, by the way. But it was done before then, and there's a big, long vinyl box edition, which heaven only knows how many bedrooms are in that house. So in looking at the options, I guess Craig could theoretically tear down this house. He doesn't want to do it because it's Rena Wiseman's childhood house on there. So it's a historic house, and I don't want to do it. Sorry, Rena isn't here, but Rena's mother sold this to Craig two years ago on it. But this could be torn down and duplexed with a lot more density without coming back through you right now. This could at least have some addition put on it. I'm not sure a full duplex, but some addition on here. But looking at those possibilities, it seemed like this worked a lot better, being able to put a duplex back here. Instead of, there's a total of four dwelling units you can put on these two lots right now, two duplexes on two lots, four dwelling units. Right now there's two dwelling units on two lots. You could put two more. And we think rather than trying to mess around with these houses here, it would be better to put the new two dwelling units back on this property. Now we thought another possibility would be to pull this line back here, put a single family house here, and duplex this one up here. Because the 202 has enough space to be a duplex if you square it off the lot line right about back here. Square the lot line and do that. But again, we thought rather than fooling around with this, as everybody else has down the street, it would be better to build a new house back here where we can do things right. Now, we thought the little tuck in the lot helped everything. And the reason it helped us everything is because we could put the parking back here, get it as far off the street as we could. That's the first benefit, getting it far off the street. The second benefit is that our stormwater would run onto the grass, not back out on the street, which is what often happens when you put closer. It just runs it back down and gets in the street and the street system. This way it goes to the grass. So we thought that was a true benefit aesthetically and storm drainage-wise is to have the little notch in the property. The staff has said that's an irregularly shaped lot. Now, the ordinance says that the Planning Commission shall avoid very irregularly shaped lots where possible. Now, I noted when you were hearing the plat just before us, the Coldstream one, that had a big notch in it, and a lot of must have 20 different calls on that going around. There was no issue about that being irregularly shaped, nor should there have been on that, because that was not unusual. Same token, this is not unusual, just having a little notch in there. You have cul-de-sac lots that flare up. It's not unusual to have leftover lots like this. We think the notch really helped things on this. so we thought in looking at all the options given the fact these are duplex lots two of them, you could have four dwelling units on them it's better to put the new dwelling units in a new house because you can just do things right you can get a house for the proper setback you can get the park and tuck back there Craig is hiring Paul Lee, an architect, to do this design if you want to talk to him about design He has some ideas about it. He hasn't designed it yet because we don't have the configuration of the lot yet. We need to have that. But Paul would be able to answer and discuss with you a little bit about the design of this. A couple other things that were raised right now, and that is the parking spaces. Right now, we have about six spaces on 202. And there are a total of about eight spaces on 200. There's a group of them here. And this parking lot, which you saw in the areoles down farther south, that's on this property too. So there are about eight spaces existing on 200 and about six existing on 202. So there won't be a vast increase in the number of spaces on these properties if you approve this plan. The stormwater drainage I've discussed, how the parking lot will go back there. The sanitary sewer, we are showing a sewer easement coming up to Waller Avenue. That's been, I think, okayed by the staff as well. on the sidewalk, as was discussed, it does meander around a little bit right now, as was done in the city project about ten years ago. Craig is happy to work with the city if they want that straightened out, if they want it right up against the curb, if they want it back or whatever. He'll work with them on doing that. the non-conforming nature of the house at lot 202, that's non-conforming today. Nothing you're going to do is changing this one iota. Whether you approve this or disapprove this, this house is non-conforming back then from the setback lines. Now, you would note that the porch is allowed to go over the setback line. Apparently when houses in this area were built back in 1920, you only had to meet the setback line for the street that you faced. They didn't have the concept of the side street side yard. Even though that plan in 1919 showed this setback line, it wasn't required to meet it because it was facing Waller Avenue, and they only made you meet the setback for the street you were facing on that. But the point is that this will have nothing to do with the conforming or nonconforming nature of that existing building up at the corner of 200. I think that is most of what I wanted to relate to you. Again, we wanted to show you what the thinking was on this. We do not agree with the limitation of lot three to two units. excuse me, to one unit. We want it to have two units on there. If you want, again, we can postpone it to work with the staff some more, but I think we have thought through a number of these issues that they had raised and the big thing to me would be whether we have the duplex on 202 or whether we have it back here on 1343. and I think it works a lot better on 1343 on that. So I appreciate your listening to this. As I said, we just got the recommendation at 12 noon, but we thought rather than just postponing it, we thought it was important to you to hear what the thinking behind this was. we think the notch in the property which I guess is the issue which has been raised by the staff is actually a plus for this property not a minus we don't think in any case it's a very irregular lot which is prohibited by that section we don't think it meets that criteria we feel we meet all the criteria of the subdivision regulations And as I said, we're here, and we're happy to discuss this with you. We very are, and we very much appreciate the time you all have spent on this. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Murphy at this point? Okay, thank you, sir. Let me ask anyone, Mr. Berkeley? 200, you can't do anything to, so you can't make that a duplex unless you just do it inside the existing building. Probably so. There's a little room back here, but probably not much you can do with. You'd probably have to do it within the existing building. Lot 202 is a house. Under this plan, it would have to stay a house at 6,000 square feet, right? Yes. And even if you went back to the proposed plan, that lot still is not large enough to meet the R2 criteria is the way I'm calculating. I think that notch is 1,380 square feet. That's right. What's on the screen is our plan as presented to you, and under the plan as we presented it to you, 202 has to stay a single-family house. Okay, but I thought you said something about putting it on Waller versus putting it on Elizabeth. Yeah, it would theoretically be possible to make 202 have 7,500 square feet by bringing this line down a little bit more. And then we'd still have enough for a single-family house here but put the duplex up there. Okay, so just a different configuration. Yeah, it would be a different configuration of the units. Okay. So, all right, what about addressing the parking? I mean, we don't have a site plan, I guess, is part of the problem. Is there one that exists, or is that possible to get? We do not have one. It would probably be possible to do. I mean, it's a plan. You normally don't get into site plans, but we're pretty open to things here. The photographs. The photo. There's a photo that has some of the parking shown. Well, I'm talking about, I guess, it's proposed, because I think what I heard Mr. Martin say was that he felt like he might need that to review this properly. Am I understanding that right? Okay. Mr. Martin, we can't hear your head shake. I beg your pardon. The answer is yes. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Another question, Ms. Plumlee? I am wondering, there's a concrete pad. Is that back towards in 200? Is that near the lot line? There's a concrete pad right back there, and there's one parking area right about here, both on 200 right now, both existing. This may be the concrete pad. This is sort of asphalt type thing, I think, out there. Thank you. Any other questions? Let me, Ms. Beatty. Yes, ma'am. Going back to subdivision, I recall you saying there were five bedrooms in 200. Yes. And in subdivision, and today you also said you think five in 202. I'm thinking about parking again without an exhibit. I'm trying to figure out how we do that. So how many are there in 202? How many bedrooms? Five. There are five active bedrooms currently. And then how many are you proposing on the site as you have it drawn with the parking in the back and the duplex on the front versus the site as staff recommended? How many bedrooms are you anticipating? Well, on our proposal, we'd have a duplex on lot three, which is the rear one, which would have a total of eight bedrooms, four bedrooms in each unit. Now, under the ordinance now, I want to emphasize, each dwelling unit is limited to four people. Even though there's four bedrooms, you cannot put two in a bedroom. So there would be a duplex there, eight bedrooms total, eight people total in the entire duplex, not per side, the entire duplex, the eight. Eight bedrooms, eight people. Okay. And under the proposal that the staff just presented to us, are you thinking five bedrooms because the other ones have five bedrooms if it's a single family? Under the ordinance, as it is now, it will be limited to four bedrooms. Four bedrooms. One person per bedroom. Okay. Under a new single family house. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? Mr. Murphy, I don't kind of agree with what you're saying about this being an irregularly shaped lot. But I'm not supportive, even though it's zoned R2, for a duplex to be on lot three. I just don't. If Frank were here, we all know what he'd say. eight pounds of flour in a five-pound sack. And, you know, especially given the issues that this part of the county has had with stormwater, with flooding, I think that we're just asking for trouble if we try to put too much on that lot. I have some low-impact development ideas that I'd like to talk to the planning about. Mr. Harden is suggesting we go ahead and postpone and take the parking, the sidewalk, and drainage issues you're mentioning, because Craig has studied the low-impact guidelines in the stormwater manuals and has been looking at those as well, which will help the stormwater situation as well as having the parking back here a great deal. and we'd be happy to submit those to the staff so they can look those over. But we do think this discussion in front of you has been very helpful, and we appreciate you all doing it. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I think I would add, I think you covered most everything, but include on the site plan the footprint of the house or the duplex or whatever you're planning on building. Try and get us as much information as possible so that we can clearly see alike pictures. Okay. Thank you. Will? One other thing, too, I think at least I'm going to be interested to hear. If there's going to be 18 bedrooms, there's a max of 14 parking, how are the other people going to be accommodated? So if you all can kind of give us some info on that. Okay. Any other thoughts from the Commission at this point? If not, Mr. Murphy, I'm presuming that's going to be a request from you for a continuance? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this request at this time? Any other comments from the Commission? Mr. Wilson? I was going to make a motion for postponement, but if you were ready for that. But the question is, is this postponement for the 14th or 30 days or how much? 14. 14. Until March 14th. Okay. And there would be a continuance, Mr. Wilson. Okay. Then if it's agreeable with my colleagues, I simply suggest that for Plan 2013-9, M Forest Park Edition, that we have a postponement or continuance until March 14th. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for continuance until March 14th of Plan 2013-9F. All those, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Harden. I believe, unless I'm off base, our next plan to hear is on page 4. It's plan 2013-3F, Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 6. We do have a waiver that's on a white sheet that should be in front of you on that as well. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we are headed to Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 6. It is Plan 2013-3F. This plan was previously approved by this body. It has been brought back to you again to consider a waiver request, just like you heard on the other end of Coldstream on McGrathiana. In this case, as you can see, this is the plat that creates these lots. This is the Eastern Kentucky Hospital campus. You may recall when this came in, there was some discussion about an easement and access from Bull Lee into the mental health facility here across the U.K. We had a lot of discussion about that. So, again, you can see the lots here from Newtown Pike up Citation Boulevard. Bull Lee extends to serve the campus for the Eastern Kentucky Hospital. There was a waiver granted by this body on this termination. In this situation, again, they are requesting a waiver of the surety and bonding requirements. And again, staff would assure you that through the way they structure their contracts and that they do assure that all the work is done in accordance with the regulations. and staff is recommending approval of the plat subject to its previous conditions as well as approval of the waiver. Any questions, Mr. Martin? Ms. Tuttle, anything to add? I have just one thing to add, and that is the fact that in this particular case, the road Bully South was built by the Finance Cabinet as opposed to being built by the university on ground owned by or for the use and benefit of the university. So it's a little more complicated, but the surety is actually coming from the Finance Cabinet, which has the same issue with not being able to post a bond. Thank you. Question, Ms. Mundy? Should that not be denoted somewhere on that plat with regard to the street? Should that not be somewhere? There is a letter. The standard procedure, the way we've done it, is that the entity post having the responsibility for the surety has a letter that goes to the Division of Engineering, and they've accepted that as a part of it. It's their requirement, and that's the way we've handled it in the past. It's just it's a different entity. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Any other questions from the Commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion. Mr. Wilson, I'm presuming you're ready for something? Yes, sir. Move right ahead. It's agreeable. I'd like to move approval for Plan 2013-3F Coldstream Research Campus Unit 6, subject to the previous conditions as well as the waiver. Thank you. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval, noting the waiver for the reasons provided by the staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Walt. Our next plan is at the bottom of page 4, continuing to page 5. It's DP 2013-3 Hamburg Place. So you do have staff recommendations, revised recommendations on a blue sheet before you. All right. The next item is on page 5. It's item C, DP 2013-3, Hamburg B5P and B6P area, the highway commercial for lots 4 and 5 amended. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the development for Outlots 4 and 5 as well as to add an additional access point off of Winchester Road. This property is, again, located at I-75 in Winchester Road in Sir Barton. We have the Walmart and the Lowe's. The additional development on this side of the greenway here on War Admiral. This is where the Hobby Lobby and Sportsman's Warehouse is located. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the out-lot development on these two lots as well as to propose a right-in, right-out access onto Winchester Road that would have median controls to prevent left turns as well as circulation to improve to War Admiral back out this way. The subdivision committee recommended postponement. There was a number of concerns over the internal circulation of the revised and newly submitted access point. There was a number of conflicts with parking spaces backing into that new drive lane. The applicant did submit to us a revised site plan. It may be a little difficult to tell on the overhead, but the entire area from Winchester into War Admiral is channeled straight through without any ability to access it from the two outlots until you get into the development. No parking spaces backing on to it. This was an improvement over what was originally submitted. We do have correspondence from the Highway Department on their approval of the new access point. The particulars are also governed by our train of traffic engineering sign-off as well. So we do have a revised set of conditions in front of you on the blue sheet that does take us down to 12 conditions. There were two additional conditions related to a previous Board of Adjustment action on the 50-foot building setback from the B6P for the outlot 5. in this area. We've asked that the applicant provide a building envelope and to reference the note for the Board of Adjustment. And then there's also B6P provisions over buildings over 100 feet in length are required to have offsets, breaks in them architecturally. Sort of a small, big box type of provision for B6P development. But with those changes, the staff is recommending approval. If you have any questions, we have to try to answer them. Any questions, Mr. Taylor? No. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Applicant? Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, Keith Messinger, HR Engineering, representing the owner. I'm entertaining questions. We agree with these conditions. Thank you for the revisions. Any questions for the applicant? You're in agreement with everything? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the revised staff recommendation of DP 2013-3. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for approval, DP 2013-3, with revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Moving on, I believe at the bottom of page 6, performance bonds of letter and credit. I need a motion in regards to those. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of a release and call of bonds. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made in second before the release. Approval of the release and call of bonds. That is before you. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Moving on, I think our next item is at the middle of page 7. Public Facility Review 2013-1 Fayette County Public Schools. I think Ms. Rackers is coming forward for this. Yes, and good afternoon. And before we get started, I just wanted to let you know that there are representatives from each of the schools in case you have questions about the landscape architecture or the architecture of the school sites. This is on page 7 of your agenda. It's item B, under commission items. It's PFR 2013-1, and it's a request made by Fayette County Public Schools for a public facility review of a renovation and expansion of four of their schools. Those four schools are Deep Springs Elementary, Glendover Elementary, Garden Springs Elementary, and Jesse Clark Middle School. All of them are in residential areas and are basically surrounded by residential zoning, except for Jesse Clark. That is on Clay's Mill Road, and it's got a residential zoning around three sides of the property, and then across Clay's Mill is the Clay's Mill Shopping Center and a little professional office development. So that is different zoning than the residential. First is Deep Springs. This is the property right here. Bryan Station Road, and then Dixie Plantation Subdivision is over here, and here is the interstate. Access to the property, if you could put the site plan up, please. Access to the property is from Brinell. And then Sandalwood Drive, which is on one of the corners of the property. Right? Somewhere. It's, I think, down in this area. I lost it because it's turned a different way. But anyway, Sandalwood Drive is going to provide the construction access for the property. This school was built in 1963, and it had major additions in 1966, 1975, and 1988. It contains over 55,000 square feet, and it's a one-story building. With selective demolition and new construction, they'll have a net increase of about 13,000 square feet. They're planning to completely renovate the school, and they will replace the electrical systems, the mechanical systems, the fire alarm and fire protection systems, all interior finishes, and all the door hardware. They will also replace all the kitchen equipment as part of the complete kitchen renovation, which will be part of the new construction. And then other new construction will be a ramped hallway to the gymnasium, an administrative office area, new classrooms, a mechanical room, and secondary entry vestibules. Site improvements are basically what is in shaded areas. I believe that is probably building addition, and these are building additions. They're not really differentiated from the paving, so it's kind of hard to tell, but I think that those are the building additions, and then the rest is new paving. The site improvements will include new paving in parking areas, and they'll improve the entryways. They'll have better site circulation. Everything will be 80-80 compliant, and that is true of all four of the schools, and they will all four be occupied during construction. Deep Springs will be done in four phases, and it will start this May, and then they're intending to have it finished by January of 2015, and there are representatives here for that school. If you have any questions about that one. Are there any questions that anybody could answer? Any questions? Okay. Continue. Glendover Elementary is a 13.7-acre site. And if you could put the next map up, please. That property is an R1C, and it's located at 710 Glendover Road. Here's Glendover. And then Albany is down here. Tate's Creek Road is over towards here. It's right in this area here, and then Nicholasville Road is to the west. This is at the corner of Belafonte and Glendover, and the school was built in 1956. It had additions done in 1976 and 1985. It's also a one-story building, and it contains a little over 47,000 square feet. If you could put the site plan up for that one, please. this is the school building this is new new access from from billa fondi there will be two phases of construction for this one they're adding almost 26 000 square feet and there will be minimal demolition for this the new construction will be a new kitchen and new kitchen equipment and cafeteria a new administrative area four new classrooms and a media center. And then site improvements will be the new bus drop-off loop, which will be solely accessed from Belafonte. There won't be any more bus access from Glendover. And the work is scheduled to begin in June, this June, and it will end in November 2014. And Mr. Chris Howard is here to represent Glendover Elementary if you have any questions about that. Questions? Any questions? Good. Okay. Gardens brings us the next one, and if you can put the next map up, please. Thank you. This is an eight-acre site. It's owned R1D, and it's located at 2151 Garden Springs Drive. Here is the property right here. Garden Springs comes around like this. Lane Allen is here, and it's in the Garden Springs subdivision. The access to the property, if you put the site plan up, please, is from Garden Springs. This is Garden Springs here, and it's got actually a loop drive here, and then there's another access there, and that will all be improved. This property, the school was built in 1964. They had additions and renovations in 1966 and 1967, and then there was a fire at the school, and so they had a major renovation in 1988. This is a one-story building at almost 52,000 square feet. They will renovate the media center and the cafeteria, and then, again, all the mechanical and other systems will be renovated and replaced. There will be selective demolition, and they're adding 27,000 square feet to this building. They'll have a new administrative area and space for functionally mentally disabled persons, family resource room, kitchen, a music room, new classrooms, and secondary entry vestibules. and then the site work consists of expansion and reworking of the parking and the circulation. This will be done in three principal phases to begin in May, and it will be completed by December 2014. We have representatives from Garden Springs here if you'd like to have any questions. Questions? Okay, good. Jesse Clark is the last one, just Jesse Clark Middle School. It's a little over 17 acres in size, zoned R1B. Here is Clay's Mill Road, Wellington Way, and then Manowar is down in this area here. The address is 3341 Clay's Mill Road, and it's across from the Clay's Mill Road Shopping Center. Access to the property is from Clay's Mill. Here is Clay's Mill down here, and access to the property is right there. And there's also an access point right there. This school was built in 1962 and it had additions done in 1990. It's the largest of the schools. It's a one-story building and it contains 90,000 square feet. They're completely renovating this minimal demolition. They're adding a two-story addition that will be about 26,000 square feet. So overall when it's finished there will be about 125,000 square feet. in addition to replacing all the fire alarm and mechanical systems and everything all the kitchen equipment will be replaced with this one they'll have side improvements that'll be new paving and improve circulation they're adding parking places but they're still going to be short eight spaces are required 134 they'll only have 126 but it will be more conforming than it is right now new construction will wrap around the building on three sides you can see here here and there It will give them an administrative area, interior corridor connection to the gymnasium, space for music and art instruction, enrichment classrooms, an elevator, and two entry vestibules. It will be done in three phases. It will go from June 2013 to June 2015. And then in the information from the school system, they said that the site work is designed to interface with the urban county governments and the utility work along Clayson Hill Road. and it will also allow the school to continue with its primary function during the construction. That could be part of the reason that it's still short on parking. I don't know for sure, but that may be a possibility. And if you could put the map back up there, Steve, please. We've got FEMA floodplain all along here. And we're not aware that this has been a problem area, but this area has. A detention basin was constructed on this property right here, and then this is the Wellington Park. It's got a specified designated green space area, greenway area, and tree area, and those both have been done to reduce the flooding in the area. It's not likely that the construction for Jesse Clark will affect either floodplain area. the property is big enough and it's developed and graded so that the stormwater will not go any further than the property itself. Scope of construction isn't extensive enough to really cause any problems. But we still recommend erosion control measures for all phases of construction to minimize any potential flood issues. And that basically is for all of the four projects that they would use erosion control measures for any of those projects. Chris Howard, again, is here to represent Jesse Clark. If you have any questions about that project. Questions? Continue on. Okay. All right. There are several 2007 goals and objectives that apply to and support this project, or all four of the projects. Those are all listed on page 4 and the top of page 5 of your staff report. And then there is one theme from the 2012 plan that applies. The 2007 community facilities chapter applies to this, supports it. And then all four are supported by the land use element because all four of the properties are recommended for public education uses. And we find this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The projects all support the school system's goal of becoming a world-class school system by 2020, and that is referenced in the 2000 plan. So we recommend that you find this in agreement, but we ask that all applicable permits be obtained from engineering in the state before they do construction because they are exempt from zoning, but they're not exempt from building code or engineering requirements. If you have any questions about the stick record, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions? No. Okay, great. Thank you. I would like to, one, welcome and say thank you to the school personnel for attending. I'm sorry we didn't have any questions for you. If there's no further questions or other questions or any questions, I'll entertain a motion. Anyone? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. With the recommendations of the staff, I'm sure. Okay, thank you. The motion was made by Mr. Wilson for approval of PFR 2013-1, which includes all four schools with staff recommendations and was seconded by Ms. Mundy. please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. And I want to thank you all for being here, too. Thank you, folks, very much. A couple of items. We do have a work session next week. That information should be presented to you by e-mail prior to that time. I think we have no audience items. I do have a commission item. As if Ms. Lynn Roche-Phillips' name wasn't long enough, it has gotten longer. I think congratulations would be in order. She has completed, passed, and defended everything to now become Dr. Lynn Roche-Phillips. So congratulations to her. And with that, any other commission items? I'm sorry I vacated for a moment. I did have a filly while we were doing this. And all is well. Yeah, Mama Horse had a filly. So otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. And seconded, all in favor, please say aye. There you go. Thank you, folks.