# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - July 10, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 10, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3410 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3410?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-07-10 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 16,113 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on July 10, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which addressed seven agenda items. The Commission took nine votes during the session and heard three public comments. The meeting resulted in a mix of approvals and postponements. Four items were approved: the Tuscany, Unit 10 Preliminary Subdivision Plan; the Tuscany, Unit 10 Final Subdivision Plan; the Dozier Property Preliminary Subdivision Plan; and the Windstream Kentucky East LLC Public Facility Review. Three items were postponed for further consideration: the Ashland Park Subdivision, Unit 11, Lot 4 Final Subdivision Plan; the Growth Properties (AMD) Development Plan; and the Recreation and Tourism Land Uses Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Frank Penn, Joseph Smith, Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, Carolyn Richardson, David Drake, and Patrick Brewer **Absent:** Brewer and Drake **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions All votes during this meeting were conducted by voice vote with no recorded dissents or abstentions. **DP 2014-13: Growth Properties (AMD)** — Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Mundy. The proposal was indefinitely postponed by unanimous voice vote. [timestamp: 0:15:57] **ZOTA 2014-4 & SRA 2014-1: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses** — Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Wilson. The items were postponed by unanimous voice vote. [timestamp: 0:17:01] **PLAN 2014-33F: Ashland Park Subdivision, Unit 11, Lot 4** — Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Mundy. The proposal was indefinitely postponed by unanimous voice vote. [timestamp: 0:18:40] **Consent Agenda** — Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Mundy. The Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous voice vote, with PLAN 2014-47P: Dozier Property removed for separate consideration. [timestamp: 0:22:05] **Plan 2014-40P: Tuscany, Unit 10 (Preliminary Subdivision Plan)** — Motion by Mr. Chairman. The preliminary plan was approved by unanimous voice vote with revised conditions 13 and 14 replaced by waiver conditions a through d. [timestamp: 1:28:06] **Plan 2014-40P: Tuscany, Unit 10 (Waiver)** — Motion by Mr. Chairman. The waiver was approved by unanimous voice vote, subject to conditions a through d in the waiver report. [timestamp: 1:29:42] **Plan 2014-11F: Tuscany, Unit 10 (Final Subdivision Plan)** — Motion by Mr. Chairman. The final plan was approved by unanimous voice vote, subject to waiver conditions a through d. [timestamp: 1:30:12] **Plan 2014-47P: Dozier Property** — Motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Ms. Mundy. The proposal was approved by unanimous voice vote with 17 conditions, including correction of the record plat reference and denoting tree planting easement width. [timestamp: 1:47:45] **PFR 2014-3: Windstream Kentucky East LLC** — Motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Mr. Wilson. The proposal was approved by unanimous voice vote with staff recommendation that the new security fence be combined with existing fencing to enclose only the new array and minimize adverse effects on residential areas. [timestamp: 2:09:17] ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the board during the public comment period. **Michael Walsh** [timestamp: 1:37:48] raised concerns about the Dozier Property, specifically regarding a 20-foot gap created by a utility easement that was rerouted to avoid a detention basin. Mr. Walsh expressed concerns that this gap could create safety and aesthetic issues, including compromised line-of-sight to a retaining wall and potential for illegal activity. He suggested that the utility could be rerouted or that landscaping could be used to screen the view. **Randy Nicholas** [timestamp: 2:04:12] addressed the visibility of satellite dishes from Wilson Downing Road. He acknowledged that the satellite dishes would be visible from the road due to their size and the depressed ground elevation, but stated that they would not be startling in appearance and would be partially shielded by existing trees. **Bernard Malone** [timestamp: 2:05:51] spoke about buffering and visibility of the satellite dishes. Mr. Malone confirmed that the property has a thick row of tall trees along the back and side that already provide significant screening. He also noted that Windstream is amenable to adding a secondary fence to further buffer the site. ## Appointments Will Berkley was appointed to the Urban County Planning Commission. ## Contested Items **Cross-section Design for Meeting Street Trail** A disagreement arose between staff and the applicant regarding the design of the Meeting Street trail. The applicant proposed allowing a 10-foot trail on the school side without a sidewalk, while staff recommended a standard 60x41 cross-section that would include transition points. The two approaches represented different visions for the trail's configuration and integration with the surrounding area. Rather than reaching a resolution at this meeting, the issue was deferred for future review, allowing additional time for further consideration of both proposals. **Utility Easement Routing on Dozier Property** Residents raised concerns about the routing of a utility easement on the Dozier Property. The easement design created a 20-foot gap where the easement turned to avoid a detention basin. Community members expressed opposition to this configuration, citing both safety and aesthetic issues related to the gap. The Commission acknowledged the residents' concerns during the discussion. Despite the community opposition, the Commission approved the plan with conditions, allowing the project to move forward while incorporating measures intended to address the raised issues. ## Tuscany, Unit 10 (Preliminary Subdivision Plan) **Agenda Item:** 2014-40P The Planning Commission discussed the preliminary subdivision plan for Tuscany Unit 10 [timestamp: 1:27:33]. Key speakers in this discussion included Tom Martin, Rory Kaley, and Tim Haymaker. **Main Issues Discussed** The primary focus of the discussion centered on three key elements of the proposal: - **Multi-use trail along Meeting Street:** The applicant proposed a 10-foot trail on the school side of Meeting Street - **Sidewalk waiver:** The plan included a request for a waiver from standard sidewalk requirements - **Public access easement:** The Commission addressed the need for a public access easement as part of the project **Staff Recommendations** Staff recommended against the applicant's proposed 10-foot trail design. Instead, staff advocated for a standard cross-section with a transition to sidewalks, which would better align with existing standards and connectivity requirements. **Outcome** The motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plan passed. The approval included revised conditions that addressed the concerns raised during the discussion, incorporating modifications to the trail and sidewalk design from the staff recommendations. ## Tuscany, Unit 10 (Final Subdivision Plan) [timestamp: 1:30:12] The final record plat for Tuscany Unit 10 was presented for approval. Tom Martin addressed the board on this agenda item. The final record plat was approved with the following conditions: * Utility and street light easements must be included * Documentation of Water Quality approval is required * Timing of Meeting Street construction must be addressed Additionally, a waiver for substantial completion was approved as part of the final subdivision plan. The agenda item was classified as a discussion and resulted in approval. ## Dozier Property (Preliminary Subdivision Plan) **Identifier:** 2014-47P The Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary subdivision plan for the Dozier Property during this meeting [timestamp: 1:47:45]. **Key Speakers** Dick Murphy and Michael Walsh were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Discussion and Concerns** Public comments during the review focused on two main areas of concern: * Utility easement placement * Lot size consistency **Conditions of Approval** The Commission approved the preliminary subdivision plan subject to 17 conditions. These conditions included: * Correcting the record plat reference * Denoting tree planting easement width **Outcome** The preliminary subdivision plan for the Dozier Property was approved with the specified conditions. ## Ashland Park Subdivision, Unit 11, Lot 4 (Final Subdivision Plan) **Agenda Item 2014-33F** The final subdivision plan for Ashland Park Subdivision, Unit 11, Lot 4 was presented for discussion [timestamp: 0:18:40]. Matt Carter addressed the item. The primary issue identified was the lack of sanitary sewer service for the proposed subdivision. Due to this constraint, the applicant requested that the matter be postponed indefinitely. No objections to the postponement were raised. **Outcome:** The item was postponed indefinitely. ## Growth Properties (AMD) (Development Plan) The board discussed the development plan for 100 Goodrich Avenue under agenda item 2014-13. [timestamp: 00:15:57] Matt Carter presented the matter to the board. The discussion centered on concerns regarding the proposed development, specifically focusing on stormwater flooding issues and questions about the suitability of single-family residential use for the property. The applicant requested that consideration of the development plan be postponed indefinitely. No objections to the postponement were raised by board members or other parties present. The board approved the indefinite postponement of the development plan for 100 Goodrich Avenue. ## Recreation and Tourism Land Uses (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment) **Identifier:** ZOTA 2014-4 & SRA 2014-1 The Commission discussed a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding recreation and tourism land uses [timestamp: 0:17:01]. Mr. Penn presented the item to the Commission. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the amendment, citing alignment with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and Destination 2040 goals as the basis for their recommendation. **Outcome** The Commission postponed action on the zoning amendment to allow for further discussion of the proposal. ## Windstream Kentucky East LLC (Public Facility Review) **Identifier:** PFR 2014-3 The Commission reviewed a public facility request from Windstream Kentucky East LLC regarding modifications to their property. [timestamp: 2:09:17] **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Barb Rackers, Randy Nicholas, and Bernard Malone. **Request and Approval** The Commission approved the request to install six satellite dishes on the Windstream property. **Recommendations** In addition to approving the satellite dish installation, the Commission made a specific recommendation regarding the property's security infrastructure. The Commission recommended that the new security fence planned for the property be combined with the existing fence to minimize visual and other impacts on nearby residents. **Outcome** The request was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Approval of DP 2014-13: Growth Properties (AMD) with indefinite postponement - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of ZOTA 2014-4 & SRA 2014-1: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses - **Motion** — postponed: Indefinite postponement of PLAN 2014-33F: Ashland Park Subdivision, Unit 11, Lot 4 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Consent Agenda with removal of PLAN 2014-47P: Dozier Property - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2014-40P: Tuscany, Unit 10 (Preliminary Subdivision Plan) with revised conditions 13 and 14 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of waiver for Plan 2014-40P: Tuscany, Unit 10 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2014-11F: Tuscany, Unit 10 (Final Subdivision Plan) including waiver - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2014-47P: Dozier Property with 17 conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PFR 2014-3: Windstream Kentucky East LLC with staff recommendation --- ## Full transcript We're glad to be part of the international horizon for your company. It's very kind. And Tim, you've been in charge here since the beginning, I guess. I've been with Shakespeare and Code for the last eight months. Okay. And I'm responsible for the downtown operation. Which is a great operation. Well, thank you. We appreciate it. And thank you for welcoming us to Shinowen. We look forward to being here. Like some old chile series He's walking through the wall He talks to angels And the stars start to spin He thinks of troubles That he's got from him He recalls how his heart got broken And how it's still that way King of broken hearts is so sad and wise He can smile while he's crying inside We know he'll be brave tonight Cause he's the king of broken hearts guitar solo recalls how his heart got broken and how it's still that way. The king of broken hearts thinks that he's an old fool. He's a little bit like me and you. So what's a king like that's supposed to do With all that blue time We know he'll be brave tonight Cause he's the king of broken hearts He's the king of broken hearts Thank you. Maybe I treat you quite as good as I should. Maybe I don't love you Quite as out of time as I could Little things I should have said and done I never took the time You were always on my mind You were always on my mind Maybe I don't love you Always lonely, lonely times I guess I never told you I'm so happy that you're mine If I made you feel so blessed I'm so sorry I was fine You were always on my mind You were always on my mind Tell me, tell me that you'll speak your present life Give me one more chance to keep you satisfied, satisfied Little things I should have said and done I never took the time You were always on my mind You were always on my mind Tell me Tell me that you're sweet and alive Give me Watch us keep useless right You're always on my mind Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Ladies and gentlemen, if everyone take their seats, we'll get started. Thank you and welcome to the July 10th, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. First thing I would like to do is take this opportunity to, I guess I would say, reintroduce Carolyn Richardson to the Planning Commission. she has been reappointed and she was back with us for her first meeting after a three to four year vacation and we were commenting she said that she has been to a psychiatric meeting and has been certified that for some reason she is still coming back but at any rate, welcome, and we look forward to working with you once again. At this time, if it's okay with the Planning Commission, I'd like to take an item out of order, a commission item. This is July 1, and we are supposed to elect new officers at this time. A nominating committee has met, and at this time, I'd ask Mr. Penn for a report from that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The nominating committee met, and your slate of officers for, or the officers to be nominated are on page six of our handout. If you would look at those officers, and Mr. Chairman, are we going to take them one at a time, or are we going to do this? This shows the current officers. this is a slate for this shows the current officers the nominating committee is recommending the same the same officers as you see printed okay and do you have a secretary in mind well then we'll have to take nomination for the floor for a secretary carol actually when the nominating committee met, we did select Will Berkley to be in the slate. Okay. Mr. Berkley, will you accept the nomination? Yes. Sounds like I probably should have asked Ms. Plumlee. A lot of things you should have done. We do have a slate of officers and just to clarify, Chairperson Mike Owens, Vice Chair, Mike Cravens, Secretary Will Berkley, Parliamentarian William Wilson I would ask if there's no objections to this I could ask for a motion to accept these or we can ask for nominations from the floor Mr. Chairman I move we accept them as presented Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded to elect the officers as presented Please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes thank you we do have one other item which would be delegation of secretarial duties which is shown also on page six and if it's commissions will entertain a motion for that as well mr. chairman I move for the delegation of the secretarial duties as presented on page Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the delegation of secretarial duties as written. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes as well. Thank you. I'm sure you like that, don't you, Will? Next, return in order of agenda. Approval of minutes. minutes from May 8, 2014, May 22, 2014, and June 12, 2014 have been distributed by email to commission members. At this point, I have not heard of any corrections or additions. If there is any, please let it be known now, or I'll entertain a motion for the approval of these minutes. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, move approval of minutes from May 8, May 22, and June 12, 2014. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of those minutes. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes as well. Thank you. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon. Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn to your agenda, page 3, item A, DP 2014-13, growth properties amendment, I would request an indefinite postponement. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. That would be on page 4, actually. Or 4. I'm sorry. That's okay. Anyone in the audience or commission member wish to speak to this request for postponement Seeing none I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, move postponement of DP 2014-13 Indefinitely. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for an indefinite postponement of DP 2014-13 growth properties. Please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Penn? I move for a postponement of Zota 2014-4 for reasons that we need further discussion as a Planning Commission okay thank you do we have a second motion has been made and seconded for postponement of Zota 2014-4 and SRA 2014-1 any discussion or anyone wish to speak in regards to this postponement this chairman is that an indefinite postponement indefinite postponement it can be rescheduled if it is I think we'd have to reschedule because I don't know when to postpone with two certainly okay motion's been made in second in i see no one else wishing to comment uh please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you any other requests for postponements or withdrawals mr chairman staff does have an item to bring to your attention yes sir on page two at the bottom of your agenda item B plan 2014-33F Ashland Park subdivision unit 11 lot for staff has received a written request to postpone this plan indefinitely thank you anyone in the audience or commission member wish to speak to this request for postponement seeing none I'll entertain a motion yes ma'am uh mr chair move indefinite postponement of plan 2014-33f ashland park thank you do we have a second motion has been made and seconded for an indefinite postponement of plan 2014-33l please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you any other requests for postponements or withdrawals seeing none we'll move to our consent agenda which is on a brown sheet before you and i'll ask mr sally to walk us through that thank you mr chairman members of the commission good afternoon most of your remaining items on your agenda do qualify for consideration at this time for approval on your consent agenda there is one preliminary subdivision plan that has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that item appears on page two item b plan 2014-47p the dozier property this is located at 3581 harrodsburg road There are two final subdivision plans also recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee on the consent agenda. The first is page 3, item C, plan 2014-41F, a final record plat for Beaumont Farm, unit 10, lot 4E, the Kroger Company. This is for property at 3155 Beaumont Center Circle. the next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda page 3 item d plan 2014-46f chancellor subdivision the springs this is an amended final plat for property at 2000 through 2020 harrodsburg road there are two development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee the first appears on page 4 item b of your meeting agenda dp 2014-51 ashland oil property also known as curry subdivision and speedway this is a plan involving property at 803 south broadway the final item on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda page 4 item c dp 2014-52 amendment number three to the final development plan for boonesboro park also known as interstate park this property has addresses of 53 54 and 5380 Athens Boonesboro Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time, all of these items could be considered for approval as recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or an applicant would wish them to be removed to allow for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience wish to hear any one of these items on the consent agenda? Yes, sir. Please come forward. uh good afternoon my name is michael walsh and i live on palomar trace drive and i would like to discuss one item on the dozier property okay thank you um plan 2014-47p will be heard any other requests for any item on the casino agenda to be heard If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read, taking off Plan 2014-47P, the Dozier property. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda with the exception of item 1, page 2, item B. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the consent agenda as noted with the exception of the Dozier property. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. We will continue with the remaining items in accordance to the agenda. The first item is at the bottom of page 1, Plan 2014-40p. It's Tuscany Unit No. 10. You do have a waiver that should be before you. I believe probably at the same time we'll see the final subdivision plat on that. which will be planned 2014-11f which is on page two and you also have a waiver before you on that while the staff is setting up uh if it's okay with the commission i'll uh entertain a motion for the release and call of bonds mr chairman yes move approval of the release and call of bonds second thank you the motion's been made in second for the uh release and call of bonds from the memorandum dated July 10th, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thanks. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item on your agenda is Plan 2014-40P, Tuscany Unit 10, and staff has taken the liberty of putting up for your consideration. Also, from page 2, item A, plan 2014-11F, Tuscany Unit 10, a final record plat. The preliminary subdivision plan and the final record plat are basically for the same 65-acre property, and we thought it would be beneficial for you to consider them together. There are waivers associated with this as well, and staff will endeavor to keep things straight on the two plans. Although they concern the same property, there are some few differences between the conditions and concerns and issues on the plan. This is the preliminary subdivision plan that you can see at this location. Here is Winchester Road, U.S. 60. Here is Patch and Wilkes as it intersects with Winchester Road. This is the recent, and we say recent, apartment development that this body approved that's been under construction for some time now. Here is Meeting Street in this location. Meeting Street has been constructed in conjunction with this development. It's not yet been dedicated. We're anticipating that plat to be submitted soon that will dedicate this portion of Meeting Street. This is Tuscany Unit 8 and 9. Both of these have been approved by this body. On the preliminary subdivision plan, you can see that Meeting Street is proposed to extend all the way down the southern boundary of the 65-acre tract and then continue over to Sir Barton Way at this location. Down in here is a floodplain in a creek that is associated with the Tuscany development. Here, we've highlighted for you a 50-foot Columbia gas transmission easement that exists on the property. It transverses over here. It comes through. It was discussed with these units. Continues here and, in fact, continues on across the property, across the interstate and on through Fayette County and other places as well. The preliminary subdivision plan was filed with you in order for this plat to move forward. This is the plat of the 65-acre tract that will allow the property to be transferred to the school board. This is proposed, again, it's the same property, 65 acres, for a new public high school, associated parking, and public, and their athletic facilities. Again, you can see here's Meeting Street as it extends through here to the end of the 65-acre tract. We've tried to highlight the easement in this location as well. You can see that the tract here, it has over 1,000 feet of frontage on Winchester Road. And again, you can see the 65 acres here. The two plans are, of course, similar, and there are some similar conditions. However, there are a couple of issues that are pertinent to the preliminary subdivision plan that aren't as pertinent to the PLAT at this time. As staff has stated to you, the purpose of the PLAT is to allow transfer of the property to the school board so they can begin developing the site for the school. I think if I could direct your attention to those conditions on the final record plat, you can see that staff is recommending approval subject to standard conditions, sign-offs on a plat, including engineering, traffic, building inspection, addition of utility and streetlight easements as required, documentation of the Division of Water Quality Capacity Assurance Program. We have a few cleanup conditions in denoting the right-of-way width of Winchester Road at the cross-section location, as indicated on the plan, addition of a building line, denote general timing of the Meeting Street construction on the plat. That was part of the purpose of requesting a preliminary subdivision plan be filed before this move forward because of those public improvements. Preliminary subdivision plans, of course, demonstrate the public improvements that are required on a piece of property, particularly the street system. So, again, we would like to have that timing denoted on the plat. We would like to have the proposed access location on Winchester Road into the school site denoted. And then there is a waiver associated with this final record plat. The location, it is staff's understanding for the school, will be in this location on the property. Staff has been made aware that the state of Kentucky intends to do considerable improvements along Winchester Road, including lane widening, a possible turn lane into the school, and construction of the entrance as well. And I'm sure the applicant could elaborate on more detail of that if you desire it. But we understand it will be in this location on the property here. The waiver that is associated with this property is one that you have seen several times now with school properties. And that is a substantial, a waiver of substantial completion. they're not going to be able to provide the sanitary sewer to this site prior to their need to plat this, record it, and transfer it. You just recently had the Coventry site out on Georgetown Road for elementary school. Very, very similar circumstance. Substantial completion and the need to run a sewer to that site after the plat's recorded. In this instance, in Tuscany, there is a sewer line down in this vicinity of the property that will have to serve this. Again, 65 acres, of course, is much larger. It is a large site. And so that is a condition of the plat. Staff has recommended approval, as did your subdivision committee, of the plat. That staff, again, and you have the report for the waiver, the staff is also recommending approval of the waiver subject to the same conditions that we have placed on these plats in the past for school development, and that is a posting of a bond in conformance with your land subdivision regulations to cover the cost of the public improvements, which staff understands the applicant is willing to do as they have done in the past. Now, if I may move to the preliminary subdivision plan. the preliminary subdivision plan again shows meeting street which is a residential collector running all the way through the property along the frontage here and to sir barton way we've highlighted an area here which is an area that is subject to a requested waiver that you have before you this is the old farm road and the old farm road runs on into the property and on across and into the and it is intended to be part of an hoa trail and an amenity for the residential development in this area the waiver that staff has received as a request to modify the cross section in this location and allow that trail to be utilized in lieu of a sidewalk. Your subdivision regulations on a standard street require sidewalks on both sides of the street. They would like to utilize this HOA trail in lieu of a sidewalk in this location. It will, of course, have to transition back into a public sidewalk the rest of the way on the rest of the street. There are several conditions on the plan, as you can see from your agenda, that are standard, of course, on a preliminary subdivision plan. Again, engineering, traffic, Forester, similar standard sign-offs on a preliminary plan, and I'm not going to go over those individually for you. They do have a couple of cleanup conditions and record-planned information, source of contour, very standard, just information required on a plan. We have, again, an issue that we would like to have resolved and denoted on the plan, and that's the timing of the construction and dedication of Meeting Street. That's a public street, and we think it's important that we're all on the same page as to when that will be constructed and dedicated. An associated issue with Meeting Street is item number 10, which is resolve the extent and timing of traffic improvements at Surbarton Way and Meeting Street intersection. This is, as I've stated, a collector, residential collector. It's very important to the overall development. It's very important to the overall system of the street. To give you a very brief background, on Tuscany, originally there was a public street connection in this area that would have intersected with Winchester Road. When the school was discussing this site, it was determined that Meeting Street, and they modeled this, they had a consultant model it, Meeting Street, when the model was complete, was demonstrated to be more important to the overall development, to the function of the street system, including Winchester Road, than this. So this connection has gone away, where, as I stated, you're going to get an entrance into the school system in this location. So not only is the timing and construction of Eden Street important, as in the previous condition, it is also important to know what improvements will be done at this intersection with Sir Barton Way. Very heavily traveled, a lot of traffic. There will be more traffic. It is staff's belief that there will need to be improvements done. And we'd like to have that denoted as a timing and resolution of the scope of those improvements. Very likely there'll be a signal required here eventually. The same would be true with turn lanes. Very possible these types of improvements are going to be important to the function of this intersection. So that's the reason for that condition. We are asking him to denote the use of lot number two on the plan. I better run back over here and show you a lot number two. It's this area in here and an area that we were concerned about. You may recall from the previous development with the apartments. We want to be sure we know what's going to happen over here. It's our understanding. It will be residential. It's an odd shaped lot. Access again may be a bit of an issue. So we just would like to have that clarified. consistent with what they told us on the approval of 8 and 9. There is a waiver request, as I stated before, with this plan, and it's the one I described. They would like to amend their cross-section through the waiver process to utilize that trail as a multi-use trail in lieu of a sidewalk. As staff reviewed the requested waiver, we only had a couple of concerns, really, with, again, utilizing this area as a pedestrian multi-use trail. It would be a bike facility as well through here. It needs to transition back into Meeting Street. And then number two, and of perhaps a greater concern, is this is an HOA trail. Well, staff has concerns about making clear that the public can use it. And we are recommending in our report that an easement be established that will ensure that there will be public access to this HOA amenity. Furthermore, we believe it needs to be made very clear that the HOA will maintain this and not the public body. With our review of this particular waiver, we discovered the need of another waiver. And it's in your report again, 6-1, 6-3. Both are geometric in essence. They're design waivers. 1, 6-3 is the cross-section. 6-1 is the geometrics of the street. As Meeting Street was constructed in this location, it's very tight. And as it comes back in here, relative again to this HOA Farm Road amenity to this approved subdivision, with its need to come this way and provide frontage for the 65-acre site for the school, as well as tie into Surbarton Way, and you've got floodplain in this area, and you've got this 50-foot Columbia gas, it created a situation here where the curve is a little tight, the radius. Basically, a shorter radius creates a tighter turn. So staff discovered that, and we've reviewed that, and it is also included in your report. We are hopeful, we believe that this type of a little bit sharper turn will assist in calming traffic along the road. So we see some advantage to that. Again, school site, there'll be a lot of traffic. There'll be Collector Street, a lot of traffic on that. So we believe that that would be beneficial. And again, it was virtually dictated by the existing street and some of the other site constraints that the applicant is dealing with. and staff has recommended approval of those waivers subject to the conditions that you see before you and that leads us to item 14 on your preliminary plan agenda and that is discuss the possibility of extending the multi-use trail along the entire length of Meeting Street. That one. This one. We have a couple of exhibits to hopefully explain that discussion for you. Staff absolutely agreed that trying to utilize a trail such as this was innovative and beneficial and could help the overall system from various reasons. One, this is, as I stated before, part of an internal system and amenity that will lead on through the development and could hook up with other pedestrian facilities and trails. We felt that that could be, in fact, should be continued here and serve that same function on this entire side of Meeting Street. What we felt that would do would be allow this collector street, and again, it will be significantly used, it will allow for the provision of bike lanes off of, pardon me, it will provide the bike lanes can then be off on this shared facility and it will remove a conflict with the parking. And if you look at the exhibit before you, you can see the standard cross section above marked with the star. 60 feet of right-of-way, 41 feet of pavement with the standard sidewalk and utility section. At the bottom, you can see what will happen when that is constructed and striped. You'll still have 60 feet of right-of-way, 41 feet of pavement. You'll have your sidewalk, your utility. Then you'll have 8 feet of parking, 5 feet of bike lane in both directions. You can see that that will require that there will be no parking on one side of that street. That's how that's controlled. It is, when it's striped in this fashion, they get a bike lane in each direction. I mean, that's how a bike system has to function. They're part of the highway, so you have to have them just like cars. You have to have them going in both directions. If you'll put up the next one, please. This was something staff discussed and talked over with the applicant. we are recommending that by putting the trail on the southern side of meeting street you can reduce the pavement from 41 feet to 37 feet. You do not need the bike lanes on both sides now. You'll have a shared facility that will tie back into the system. And you can have parking on both sides of the street. Staff felt that was advantageous because of the demand for parking that schools generate, the fact that this is a collector street. Parking will, on both sides, again, help calm traffic. There will be a large amount of traffic. We anticipate as this area develops with its full residential potential, this will be a very important collector. So staff believes that this would be a viable alternative and to place that multi-use trail along all the way along Meeting Street. And staff had recommended that it be on the southern side. Again, part of that reason being so it can tie into this amenity, which they're already proposing to have and utilize just to continue it through here. no one's going to build on this easement. Now, you can encroach into an easement. You can put certain things there. But you obviously know houses, no structures. But there's certainly room for an eight-foot trail, staff believes, in this area, which then can, again, you have floodplain down here as well. And we believe that that would be an overall beneficial amenity and support to the overall system. And we are, in our community, creating more and more bike lanes, and we are encouraging bikers, bicyclists. And it is tough to retrofit. It is tough to put them in the streets and remove them from conflicts. And the parking conflict is a very serious conflict for bicyclists. And we felt like that we could get in front of the situation in this location. And by having a separate dedicated facility, we could remove that conflict and provide a much higher level of comfort and safety for people that like to bicycle, particularly young people and children. So that's the reason for that discussion item, and that's your staff's recommendation. Again, I will reiterate that staff is recommending approval of both these plans, and we are recommending approval of the waivers. staff is under the understanding that the applicant may have an alternative to present to you today and we would like as you i'm sure would like to see what that alternative is and and have opportunity to address it with that i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have mr martin before i get to the questions would you or barb uh put both of your drawings up one on top of the other or one above the other just for comparison yeah Thank you. Questions? Mr. Morton, you're talking about the HOA maintaining that bike trail sidewalk area there on that limited spot that we're seeing that's green. You're now suggesting to extend it on down. What kind of burden is that going to put on that HOA? I'm glad you asked that, and I wish I should have covered that. as you can see from what I've shown in the lower exhibit, or the upper exhibit now, pardon me, the trail, actually we believe there's room in the right-of-way to have that trail, and that could be removed from the HOA's responsibility and worries, and could actually be in right-of-way. And I apologize, I meant to elaborate on that. And then they could, I mean this is 20 feet in here, they could then separate their amenity, if they choose to from the trail in the right-of-way. And staff, as everyone's aware, HOAs change, and their attitudes and their responsibilities change. So, yes, staff does share that concern about the burden on the HOA. Any other questions? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you. Applicant? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Kaley. The partners with me is Tim Haymaker, the Tuscany developer. And what I've handed out is our proposal for the cross-section. at subdivision committee someone made the recommendation of having the 10 foot trail eight foot trail on the school side the more active side of the street and we thought that was a good idea so that is what we have drawn up here 60 foot right of way would stay the same It's the same 37 foot of pavement that the staff had on their exhibit. The rest of the right of way would be on the school side. Starting back a curb, a very large green area, suggesting 10 feet wide, 10 foot trail, and then another strip of green, three feet. And that would give a distance between the fence that I'm sure the school will be putting up around their property and the trail itself. you want to keep a little bit of distance between those two so handlebars are not snagged in chain link fences and I believe of all the conditions this seems to be the one that has got us I guess an impasse or we're looking to you for guidance on also some of the other questions about the timing and the improvements Tim can answer those as well with his agreements of what he's got going with the school system itself. I guess it's kind of open to questions at this point. Questions for Mr. Kaley? Mr. Kaley, you've got 10-foot TPE HOA. Is that just... Oh, yeah. Thank you very much. In my other dealings with the school sites, We know that the schools are exempt from a certain amount of subdivision regulations. So we're requesting not to have the tree on the school side. It's not something they're required to do. It's not something they want to take the maintenance of. Having a tree planted over there would leave it into a kind of a, we don't know who would maintain it, whose responsibility it would become. It would be in the public right away. The property owner in front of that would be the school. School doesn't want those so what we've done is we're maintaining the R3 zone street tree on the other side, but this cross section the street tree would be in the HOA property and In the drawing the HOA property and all that is the southern side of meeting Street as it goes throughout the site we're either Backing up to an existing farm lane where they hope to have the HOA amenity for the neighborhood or we're further south we're near a the gas transmission line. So this meeting street is planned to be essentially single loaded throughout this area as far as what we can develop on it. The school is taking 65 acres to the north. As we leave the school site, through the meetings developers had with school and city, we're representing, I guess I can show that, the meeting street as it continues, out towards Sir Barton, this is floodplain green area, and the street is being pulled down as close as we can get to this such that there would not be houses or businesses or anything fronting this side. So you've got 4,200 feet of meeting street that's essentially single loaded. 3,200, 3,000 feet of it's just for the school's frontage. and then the rest would be out to here and you know this area is is not yet developed all of this stays green HOA area future residential developments possibly in this area so we're we we're proposing to have the required street tree on the south side which is what the side that Tim would still control and maintain through an HOA system then it would revert to the HOA. It just would be in a tree planting easement outside the right of way. And then along the school's property, we request to not be required to have the street trees because once it gets into the school's hands, they don't have to follow any of the regulations anyway. Let me ask you, Roy, my understanding part of this multi-use trail is an old trail road or something yes the which is already in the ground yes so and are you with your proposal are you planning you're saying your trail is going to continue on the school side are you crossing meeting Street yes through here is the existing farm lane and this wants to remain as an amenity to the neighborhood when we're talking about extending a amenity trail system that would be for the residents of this HOA maintained and then putting it into more of a public control or in a public right-of-way we think that the along the school is the better side for that we have access points you know we'll have a street coming in here the school will have its location so there will be access points where anyone who is using the residential side of this sidewalks the trail system could cross over to the the ten foot eight foot utility multi-use trail that runs along the school property so that you know intersection I've got to believe there will be a three-way stop a four-way stop at these locations in front of the school and that would be an opportunity to cross the street stay on the trail system if this way or if you're not wanting to go to the school then there will be sidewalks and other systems within the neighborhood itself let me let me ask you to clarify so the green strip there you're you're calling it the hoa that's on your mouth there yes and you're still planning on putting a bike trail ped all along meeting street on the school side yes okay yeah this this green strip and then this open area up here is what we're showing now is being lot two it was a strip of land that wasn't a part of the schools or the meeting streets needs and staff felt that we shouldn't leave a strip out in the air so we're at lot two has been added to the plan it'll be denoted as residential uses and we'll have to bring a lot to in at a later time for whatever single family multi-family whatever residential uses we put in there okay questions yeah mr cravens sorry that answer confused me so so the the green spaces because the green line is going to stay there's going to be an additional your your description up there across the street yeah this side the brown line higher way okay or from intersection to intersection whatever wherever the safe points are decided to cross it okay thanks and you know meeting street the the other waiver is where we get to record the lot so that the school can take property and start their design process they have to have property you know the exact location of the crossings would match up with what their plans are which is why we're kind of needing them to get a piece of property early in the period and then as mr haymaker develops constructs meeting street in conjunction with what the school site is going to do sorry i got one other question that just came up but i was looking at your description 37 feet paved correct is that going to have parking on only one side then that's the no that's the um two parking two drive lanes and then no bikes in the street it's all on the 10 foot trail on the school side but all the white is in 10 foot with the green space between that of 10 foot and this and the street which would be parking two lanes of drive parking yes and then that what you're calling the 10 foot homeowners yes yeah uh rory um how close is that gas line to the street we've kept about 10 feet from our proposed right-of-way to the gas line for any grading we need to do with the street itself we don't mind putting a little bit of fill on top of the gas line but anywhere we would have to cut down for the road we do not want to be cutting into the gas easement i mean you wouldn't want to be putting a sidewalk or nothing on top of that they wouldn't they the gas company wouldn't want no we're trying to make sure that all construction for that street is at minimum 10 feet off that gas line easement there's a few draws through there um you know low areas where we're going to have to be raising up a bit and the grade of that street needs to be able to fluctuate independent of having to get into the gas easement that's why our separation is in there and then this this 10-foot walk i mean that's that's very gracious on that and then i mean most of those we just we yes collector street was going to have two five foot sidewalks so we just combined them into a 10-foot trail on the school side. Yeah, okay. Other questions? Mr. Berkeley? I think this is actually a pretty reasonable plan here. I'm not clear about how it transitions, I guess, from what's existing and what's proposed. I can't tell from looking at this. I mean, is it what is there is already a residential collector, right yes this is not yet dedicated but constructed this will have sidewalks on either side as you would leave this is apartment site as you would leave the apartment site the five foot sidewalk would grow at some point through here transition up to the 10 foot trail the other side of the street could that sidewalk could then tie into the hoa's farm lane so there would be you know through here you'd have your two separate trail paths one coming to the school and active one more passive and residential then the then as you transition through this area the trail would only be on this side you come back to another street intersection or a school access point wherever there will be and at that point you start to transition back to your standard street where you're going to have your sidewalks on both sides and this sidewalk over here will transit it will connect into the future subdivisions the sidewalk over here along this future development will transition back up to the 10-foot trail so at either our streets or most likely the school who should be in first at their intersections are opportunities to cross from the 10-foot active trail within the school side it's still in the right of way but it's on their side back over to either a passive trail system in the residential or continue to sidewalks on this way would continue into sidewalks and going out in either direction for one i'd like like to move on look mr haymaker speak but questions keep popping up um meetings what what is printed there as meeting street that triangle there uh you're talking about the uh HOA Old Trail coming down. You're talking about possible sidewalks, you know, where the street is printed on there. Going across the gas line, that triangle, that whole triangle, what's going to be there? Is that going to be residential or? We don't have a layout yet, but, yeah, it's zoned R3. All of Tuscany's, all of Mr. Haymaker owns is Tuscany's R3. Will we have streets facing Meeting Street there? will there be a need for a sidewalk through there? Because it sounds like right now you're not wanting to put a sidewalk through there. Correct. This area, I mean, you could develop it fronting on here with some long driveways. More likely this would be someone's backyard. If you do multifamily, this could be part of an open area that they would have. Apartments have to have a fixed amount of open space. Okay. Thank you. Anything else for Roy? Mr. Haymaker, comment or two? Thank you very much. Tim Haymaker, Haymaker Development Company, 3120 Wall Street, Lexington. Based on what's just been said, I'm a little confused myself. Wow, a lot of stuff out there. the thing that I would like to stress is we have a strong history in this community of doing the right thing we have great trail systems we want to continue to have great trail systems it's not so easy out there anymore it used to be easy it's not easy anymore I can tell you that in and I wrote down a few things if you let me just digress for just a second in 1980 through 1984, five-year period. You might call them the Jimmy Carter years, 19% interest, 12% inflation, everything bad that you could dream. In Lexington, Kentucky, with a population of 125,000, give or take, people, we averaged 548 single-family lots per year during those five years. In 2009 through 2013, the last five years, four years that we've had to compare to, we've averaged 513 single-family lots per year. That's 35 lots less in the last five full years per year than in the Jimmy Carter years. The difference is we had 125,000 people back then. We've got 310,000 people now. It's a pretty difficult environment to work in. And you're seeing, you know, I'll tell you, give up 65 acres of prime residential land for a school. It was not easy. But the market's not there. The market continues. We're four lots behind this year in May versus last year in May. And it just seems not to be showing that it's going to gain strength anytime soon. And maybe we're going to become an apartment community. I would dread seeing us all in apartments. I just think that this is the Midwest. This is America. This is where we have single-family houses. We've done everything we can to build trail systems. We love trail systems. We want to make this a trail system. We'd like to have a couple of stop signs, not lights, stop signs along Meeting Street because that slows the traffic down and allows people to get across the streets safely. Let me give you a little anatomy of this particular school site deal and the things that go with it. When we started talking to the city, the Fay County Schools of 49 acres got up to 65 acres. We agreed to sell them that property at $110,000 less than market value. Market value being set by the piece of property next door, which sold for $225,000 an acre. when we met with district 7 and the guys from your staff it became more and more clear that we needed to do more to make this site work as a school site and still accommodate the tates creek tates creek i keep saying that all the time the winchester road area and trying to minimize the traffic on that We were never asked to build this road all the way through Meeting Street. We listened and we said, okay, guys, we'll do the street. We will do that without being required to do it. We want to do it. It's the right thing to do. And then it became more and more obvious that we needed to take it the next step, and that is from the end of the school property to Sir Barton Way. And we volunteered and said, all right, give us some flexibility. We don't know. I promise you. I used to think I was smart. I don't think I know anything anymore. We don't know what the market's going to be like for the property around there. It may be a nursing home. It may be a daycare. It may be something that fits into our thing. I can't tell you that today. I can tell you we had seven people in my development department seven years ago. Now my son and I do it. And we're working hard. and there's nothing out there easy. If you take the road that we volunteered to build, it's $1,275,000 for the road. Put the sidewalks and the miscellaneous drainage and all that. Our project estimate's $1,881,000. We have a deal with the school system, volunteered by us. They would have required it. Don't be naive, or let me act like I'm naive. They would have required this, but we volunteered it. to put 125% of that amount into an escrow account to guarantee that at the time that school opened that the money would be there. But if you put the extra 25% on there, that's $2,351,000. Yes, we're going to get a half million dollars of that back, hopefully. That's the protection money. But you also have to think about the land that's under Meeting Street. Now, it would have gone into production some way or the other. But the land under there at five and a quarter acres is $1,180,000. When we talked to the school system, it became very clear that they were scared to death of that gas line. And you brought the point up about putting things on there. We don't want to put anything on there either. We've tried to deal with the gas company. They can't tell you in their 50-foot right-of-way where the pipe is. So you have to give independent consultants to go out and find where their pipe is. And it's 70 years old. Makes me a little nervous, but we're doing the best we can. So we decided let's just cut off the acreage for the school site and continue to make it buffer. We now have a road 60 feet and 50 feet. Now we've got 110 feet from the school site as clean, nice, clear buffer. But if you take that three and a quarter acres under the gas line, it's another $776,000. If you take the discount that we gave to the school system, the total value of this deal is $10,993,000. This is not casual money. But I can tell you what it forces us to do. It forces us to be businessmen and look at everything we can do to do the right thing and still be able to stay in business. There just aren't very many of us left, and I want to stay in business long term. So what I would ask is you would consider giving us this opportunity. And to answer another question, I have no interest in trying to cross that gas line with driveways or anything else. It will all come from the rear of that property. So it's going to be a very passive strip. It's a great place to have a 10-foot bike trail. I walk two or three times a week the bike trails out in Beaumont, I mean the trails. And they're used by bicyclists, and they're used by walkers. And we don't have a bit of trouble. We have no conflict at all. It's plenty of room. And so I'd like for you to consider letting us cross to the southern side, putting the 10-foot bike trail in within the road right away, because the school system isn't going to maintain it. And it's really an unfair burden because we also have all this other trail system that we will be building, that we will have an HOA responsibility. But that long strip is an accommodation, and it's a safety accommodation as well, to get us down to 37 feet, to let the bikers stay on the trail and not in the roadways where it's very dangerous. So I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Quickly, as far as timing of construction, dedication, Meaden Street, extent of timing of improvements on Sir Barton, what's your thoughts there? Well, it's a work in progress. I can tell you that the cash will be there. No question about that. It has to be open before school starts. My preference is sooner rather than later. but nothing's not nothing comes without complications and that is we do have a neighbor and we have to work with the neighbor ms madden uh to work out access to her property and help with all that we also have an 83 million dollar construction project and i'm trying to figure out the safest cleanest way to get all that construction equipment to come in off of Sir Barton as opposed to Winchester Road, which I think would be a disaster trying to get in and out of there with big trucks and all the things that go with that. So we are here clearly to get this approved today so we can move forward with the school system and finalize all these things. And they're drawing pictures. They're nice looking pictures too. And they're drawing pictures, but it's hard to say the exact timing because I don't want to build the road and then them come in and run over it with with big track hose and all those things and tear it up again so the money will be there for both segments not just the school piece but all the way out to sir barton thank you uh mr brewer do you have a question is that oh okay thank you uh mr pen yeah mr haymaker while you're there uh the next piece of property the madden property that you're talking about. Roy was talking about going from a 10-foot trail back to a 5-foot sidewalk on that Madden property. Looks to me like that while we're talking about trails, that's not a good solution because the people that get on that trail are going to want to go on to Sir Barton. It's not really Ms. Madden's property back there. She comes only back about halfway. Well, but the next property you're going to develop there. Yeah. Ms. Madden's line is here. Okay. She's got this rectangle. Right. He's got a area that wraps around her. Okay, so it's his land. My concern is, and I know that's not the development plan, but I may not have you at the next development plan. So while I've got you here, I want to ask about where you reduced that 10-foot trail on the school side back to 5 feet. If you're not going to develop on the green space side on the south, why wouldn't you just take that 10 feet all the way out and not put a sidewalk on the other side? Well, I'm a very open person, and I'll tell you exactly. You'll see us. You'll see me again because we're going to follow this very quickly with a zone change for that corner. And it will be professional office use is what we're going to apply for with a couple of hotels to accentuate like we did at Beaumont, exactly what we did at Beaumont. But we have to have other people's consideration in this. But I just need the flexibility to not be pinned down on that until we come back with the next plan. If you'd give us that freedom, that would really work for us. Spoken like a good politician. Thank you. Not me. Other questions for Mr. Haymaker? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Mr. Martin, are those your feet? Yes. I was going to say, comments, or do we want to get traffic to weigh in on this as well? If I may. Go ahead. A couple of quick things. A point of clarification. The staff's recommendation on the trail along the south side, you may recall, was contained within the right-of-way. So it would be off of the easement, as they stated. The right-of-way will not conflict with the gas easement. That being said, a couple other items of staff's concern, and that is history. And we appreciate the discussion of history, and history also has shown us that we need to be careful about the decisions that are made because operational issues, budget issues, and things grow out of decisions that are made over time, which is certainly a concern. And then lastly, we would point out that staff just saw this. We haven't had a chance to really evaluate it and discuss it at any great length. We do agree that there is an opportunity for flexibility. We are going to see some additional plans on these properties, and we can discuss alternatives and changes to the cross-section if necessary. And with that being said, staff does stand behind the recommendation of the waiver request that's before you. And if I could just directly quickly to the preliminary subdivision plan waiver request, we made four recommendations under our approval. And that is to denote that a public access easement must be established by Platt on the proposed multi-use trail, denote that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the trail, clearly denote the transition from trail to sidewalk along the south side of Meeting Street, an addition of a standard 60 by 40 cross section where the trail is not proposed on Meeting Street. Didn't cover that very well in the initial presentation, but again, that was part of the issue that staff understood that they were going to be continuous standard section, which is one reason we wanted to recommend a trail. But again, just to reiterate that, yes, there will be an opportunity for flexibility in the cross-section. We certainly support moving this plan along, but just wanted to point those few items out to the Planning Commission. Tom? Thank you. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, Tom, with these four recommendations and the counterproposal that Rory and Mr. Haymaker made, are you comfortable with this proposal fitting within your recommendations? No, sir, it doesn't match our recommendation, and we just saw it today, but we are comfortable that there's some flexibility that would allow these plans to move forward because we will see additional plans in the future which would allow the cross-section to be altered if that's deemed appropriate. but you know again that we just saw this I believe it was expressed there is concern about bringing you know having people cross a collector Street oh that's so so how would you with with the intent of trying to move this forward and the view that what we have proposed in general I think is acceptable to everybody. How do you propose dealing with this counter proposal in today's hearing? We are recommending our report that we gave to you, the waiver and those conditions, and we're not, we weren't prepared to redesign this in front of this body. And if I may add, the waiver request you've received is for removing sidewalk on one side. The cross section you have now is to remove it on two sides and replace it with one trail. The cross section shown on their plan. Find the right one. Shows a sidewalk, five and a half foot utility strip, 41 feet of pavement, and then the trail through here. our recommendation is that for this section where there is no trail proposed the trail is only recommended here that we get a standard 6041 section here that's what these four conditions would require and as mr martin said there will be other plans that will come in along this frontage mr haymaker's already described some of his plans that he has upcoming and there will be other opportunities to evaluate this cross-section through here. But for purposes of today, we know the applicant does not want this plan to be postponed. So rather than see this section and react to it today, the staff is more comfortable going with a standard cross-section, knowing that we'll have future opportunities to review all these details and bring you, hopefully, a consensus-type recommendation rather than trying to hammer it out at this meeting. Mr. Penn? So, Bill, while you're there, if we go with a waiver request as presented here today, knowing that it's going to change, but to not go with a waiver request really puts you in a worse situation. Well, the waiver request is for this area here. I understand. And we're fine with this part of the proposal. Have this trail count, no sidewalk, and sidewalk on the other side. Okay. And then obviously it will take some time for this construction to happen, and we will have other plans where this section can be reviewed maybe even more than once. That will allow the plan to move forward today. That's what I'm trying to get to. Mr. Berkeley? This is probably best for traffic. the one of our the staff recommended uh items is construction of the of the street with a shorter curve radius now granted i think things have been highlighted on this and it's kind of hard to tell from here certainly how it works but i'm just it just looks like to me that is a bit of a bottleneck. It doesn't necessarily bottleneck it. It does make a tighter curve in the roadway basically. The same amount of volume should be able to go through there. It's just they're going to have to slow down. That's basically when we make our radius tighter vehicles are going to have to travel through it slower. It's going to be set up for parking as well, right? Yes. we're going for the 41 foot is a standard cross section and then how we mark that whether we mark it parking drive lanes bike lanes that can be determined at the end you know once we get our section what we do with that pavement with how we mark it it's kind of done in our office Okay, so you guys are obviously all right with that then, the way it's laid out. Our concern isn't that curvature, the smaller radius. I would say traffic's concern is more feeling like we need the sidewalks on both sides. It's developed on both sides. You do have the connection on the south side of Meeting Street from the subdivision, and that pedestrian connectivity needs to continue on down to Sir Barton. On the south side. Any other questions for Ms. Cocker at this moment? Yes, go ahead. It is a school zone, and it is a neighborhood. Right. It's going to have a limited speed limit anyway, right? It should have a speed zone. It is going to be a high school, so we always don't have the flashers like we do at an elementary school. More reason to have. Right, but we do have the, it will be a school zone 25 during those hours. But it would be 25 because it's a neighborhood too, right? So wouldn't it be 25 all the time? No, it's actually 35. Because it's a connector street, it's 35. Yes, ma'am. does curves help i still say the curves help slow it down mr cravens do you have a question yeah i guess this meant for mr sally i'd like to ask her question but i don't have any this number c in the waiver yes sir which way are you transitioning the sidewalk going back up that way it really was intended for this transition here but it could as easily apply here there are two places where the sidewalk on the street would transition to the trail and then back well if we were to say we we like this then would this number c should that be taken out of the waiver c would still be necessary here where mr kaylee described the sidewalk going into the trail. Okay, so yes, it would eliminate this one. So it's I guess it's unclear. Again, if it transitions back to a standard 6041 near the gas easement, you'd have another transition. Okay, and then I'm a little unclear what you said about trying to approving this today. I mean, are you saying we approve it with the cut on there like it is now? Well, and then if he rory brings this into you next week and you all hash it out before you do a final development plan is that what you're saying we could do that this plan would have an opportunity for continued discussion prior to its certification as other plans come in along these frontages this could be revisited in the staff's mind there will be multiple opportunities to revision what the revisit pardon me what this section ought to be so there wouldn't be a reason to say we do it like this right now right we we think there's an opportunity in the future to review that we know they want to go forward with both plans and the staff has laid out a way where this plan can go forward today in a way that we're satisfied with it and it still allows us to dialogue about what this section ought to be i think that's all i can do so um mr sally on as far as the preliminary subdivision plan would we be changing number 14 to resolve i do not have 14 in front of me um i think we would just replace 14 and 13 with conditions a through d on the waiver report would be fine with the staff you'd have the first 12 replacing 13 and 14 with a through d would be our suggestion when you say replacing 13 and 14 you're saying replace the the conditions listed on top of page two in your agenda yeah okay with with the recommendation from the waiver yes approval that is assuming the waiver of the waiver with the recommendations? Yes, sir. Okay. Other questions? Mr. Kaley? Mr. Haymaker, any comments before we close this part of the hearing? Ms. Cocker, anything to add while they're discussing? Let's try to clarify one little more bit. street trees along the school side is that part of the waiver can that be part of the waiver to do away with that they have not requested it in writing i would be very hesitant to encourage the commission to approve waivers that are not requested in writing but the good news for the applicant is we have a waiver request deadline every month and a waiver can be submitted independent of a plan they can ask for this waiver any month okay did you understand that yeah you didn't like it i know well now if you ask for a waiver of the street cross section i think the tree would be part of that section um i'm trying to figure out what that does. The school won't do it anyway. Well, I still think that changing the cross-section with this waiver could allow the street tree to be removed from the school site. But otherwise, with the sections and the rest of the waivers, we can settle that. Right now? Yeah. Any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Kaling. Thank you, Mr. Haymaker. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion, questions, statements from the commission members. Mr. Penn? Yeah, I think the reason for going on with this is so they can get their plan and get in the school, get what they need to have to move on with the plans. I don't like this, you know, make a deal type thing in front of the planning commission. I think that needs to be worked out between the applicant and the staff. so I guess we're going to trust that they'll work that out as far as the street crews are concerned I think we just have to let that go because I don't know how you'd work it out right now not knowing what the school's gonna do or not gonna do so that's my two cents worth out we've done a lot more working on the fly here than I'm comfortable with but any other comments you know i do believe we will see this again and uh i believe the uh street tree waiver can probably be taken care of somewhere down the road without any problem um if there's no further questions i'll i can entertain a motion i would start with the preliminary subdivision plan which is on page 1 2014-40. We do have 14 conditions. There's a possibility of a change in 13 and 14. We do have a waiver that would have to include it in the motion or a separate motion. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I'll try and get through these motions. Move approval of plan 2014-40p, testimony unit 10, changing 13 and 14 to approval of the waiver conditions. Deleting them too. Okay. Second. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of plan 2014-40p with now 13 conditions, conditions deleting 13 and 14 and change in 13 to read subject to the approval of the waiver with the conditions that's satisfactory okay if there's no questions I'll ask everybody vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes now we'll take the final subdivision plan 2014-11 elf with 13 conditions okay mr. chairman yes we will need to labor with that we'll do the way we'll do the waiver now or the the waiver on the original one plan 2014-40p was included in the condition number 13 approval of the waiver with subject to the four conditions well i didn't really say that but i can let me just make a motion to prove the waiver okay i move approval of waiver 2014-40p tuscany unit 10. okay motion's been made in second for the approval of the waiver of 2014 40p unit 10. please vote when it comes up on the screen Next. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of Plan 2014-11F, Tuscany Unit 10. You want the waiver in there? Yes. Including the waiver, Tuscany Unit 10, 11F. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2014-11F, Tuscany Unit, including the waiver. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. See you here in the near future, I'm sure. I believe next is Dozier property. It's on page two, plan 2014-47P. Mr. Penn, would you like to take a break? Oh, I'm all right. Okay. Do you need one? We'll let staff set up. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. This is Plan 2014-47P, a preliminary subdivision plan for the Dozier property located at 3581 Harrodsburg Road. After review, your subdivision committee and the staff recommended approval subject to the usual sign-off conditions. the urban county engineers, traffic engineering, building inspection, addressing office, urban foresters approval, bike and ped planners approval, documentation of water quality's approval of CAP program compliance. Moving on to condition eight, we ask that they denote the width of the tree planting easement in the street section, BB, down here. clarify that then denote the width of the right-of-way in section AA at this particular point on Harrodsburg Road noting existing utilities on the face of the plan which can be satisfied by the inclusion of existing easements proposed easements the addition of contour lines at two-foot intervals the addition of zoning information on adjacent property the we ask they denote the reference source for their contour lines which is a standard convention denote the listing of private utilities per article 5-2e the subdivision regulations denote the record plat reference and that actually a667 is an incorrect piece of information so we prefer that they simply denote the record plat reference the correct one denote that there will be no development of lot 17 here until a final development plan is approved for this property and then finally condition 17 denote the construction entrances on the plan with that we'll take your questions and comments any questions no thank you sir okay i will say that the uh the applicant has submitted some revisions and has asked to withhold those at this time uh pending their inclusion of this plan on the consent agenda so we have not reviewed those per their request okay excuse me good afternoon good afternoon mr chairman i'm dick murphy representing the applicant and um uh dr butch schroyer is with me today one of the owners and bill mcalpin of eagle engineering mark mccain or landscape architect and this was on your consent agenda. It's essentially the same plan you saw a month or two ago when you had a zone change in front of you. The zone change rezoned the front lot along Hurtsburg Road to professional office, the rear to R3, like the existing houses on the other side of Palomar Trace Drive, which are already there, already zoned R3. the most of the infrastructure is already built palomar trace drive is already in along here it's already constructed because there are existing houses on this side so this preliminary subdivision plan is going to let the engineers submit their construction plans so they can do the sewers and that sort of thing but there's not near near as much of infrastructure construction here as there are in most of your plans the this was on your consent agenda and what mr jarman was referring to was that we had submitted a revised plan that i think would have knocked out most of the last 10 conditions of approval but then we discovered that by submitting that revised plan after the subdivision committee met that would make us ineligible to be on your consent agenda so that we asked them just to hold off and review it after you all acted. But then we got here, and it turned out we're not on the consent agenda anyway. But that's the way things work out sometimes. We have Michael Walsh is here, who is a resident of Palomar Trace Drive. He is the representative of the neighborhood we have been working with, and we value his input and thank him and the neighbors on Palomar Trace Drive for their input throughout all this procedure. He will address you, but I wanted to tell you a couple things we talked about. There's a concern about the width of a utility easement in this area here and whether that would put a gap between houses, which would present a view down here of an existing retaining wall. And we, in conversations during your meeting today, today we agreed that we would talk to KU once again to see what their views on that are and and see what could be done about that if anything as you know we're sort of at the mercy of KU about where these utility easements are on our corrected plan we also put two additional notes on there which we had agreed to earlier and they noted the fact that we would be putting a fence between lot 17 and these lots along here and that there'd be no vehicular or pedestrian access between lot 17 and palomar trace drive that's something we agreed to in the zone change as well so those notes will be on the plan that the staff finally signs off on on there so with that we'd ask for your approval but i know mr walsh wants to address you as well any question for mr. Murphy thank you mr. Murphy mr. Walsh members of the Commission I appreciate you taking the extra time to address some of the concerns that we've had an opportunity to talk about before many of you are excuse me just for the record give us your name and address excuse me my name is michael walsh and i live at 2153 palomar trace drive and again i appreciate the extra time that you're affording me to discuss you know one particular issue about this plan as mr murphy had had mentioned um it's uh the lot size is between lot three and four because of that utility easement and as many of you will recall my neighbors and i have been very active with this plan since the zone change was initially submitted in november never have the residents opposed development of this property we all knew that it was going to come at some point the primary concern has always been that when it was developed that the development be as congruent as possible with what already exists on the other side of the street there was a great deal of relief when that plan included single-family homes there was some concern initially with the difference in the lot frontage sizes because the initial side of the street was developed 20 years ago the lot frontages were 70 feet what was initially proposed the lot frontages were at 60 feet so there were concerns that the houses would be smaller not comparable in style or or type through some meetings with with the development team, a lot of those concerns have been addressed. And in addition to just the congruency between the style, the size, and the type of houses, there was also a lot of discussion about the aesthetics of the neighborhood. and because of the utilities that are shown coming in from this direction and taking a turn between lots three and four to avoid it from being run underneath the detention basin for the obvious reasons of not wanting to mix electricity and water, it takes a turn all the way out to the street creating a 20-foot building prohibition, which could create some aesthetic issues in terms of, you know, the lots aren't all the consistent or the same size frontage, which is different from the other side of the street. It could create some line of sight issues from the street, from this corner of this Wellington Way property development to somewhere in this area, there is a significant retaining wall made from rocks that are in metal cages that isn't the most attractive retaining wall to look at. there's also about a 10-foot barrier between the privacy screening of those Wellington Way condominiums and the property line of the Dozier property that has been a congregating point for underage drinking, illegal drug use. So having a 20-foot pathway from the street back to that area that's full of litter could just create an opportunity for further illegal activity. There have been or there has been an occasional vehicle break in on the street. So by having congruent lot sizes where if you spread the difference of that utility easement throughout the whole length of the street, you create, you don't create that path that could lead people to take an opportunity to walk up and down the street, look for car doors that are unopened, and then be able to stash whatever they might find in that area, or just be able to leave the street in an area or in a manner different than what they had to enter. By having one means of entrance and access, there are some safety issues as well. So what would be desirable for the residents would, you know, if it's possible, rather than have that utility easement take a turn to the street, maybe have it run parallel to the detention basin, That way, you wouldn't have that 20-foot area where there wouldn't be any construction. Another possibility would be coming in from the other side of the street where there are already three existing homes and bringing the power to these lots that are going to be in front of the detention basin from that area. and outside there were some other discussions about using landscaping to screen that view from the street to that area if there's no other option than to leave that 20-foot path from the street to the back of the lot so those are the concerns and i appreciate you taking the time to hear them and as well as the development team from listening to them and coming up with multiple ways to address those concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Walsh? Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak in regards to this plan? Yes, sir. Staff is completed. The recommendation was for approval. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. We appreciate those comments from Mr. Walsh, because like we said, we've worked with them closely throughout this, and we want to be a part of the solution of neighborhood issues. There is, as he mentioned, there's an existing retaining wall along the back here. These are office condominiums which front on Wellington Way, and they're much lower than this property is here so there's a there's a parking lot here and there's a retaining wall coming up which does stick up above the ground on our side even though there were the higher side up here and it's about it ranges I guess six to ten feet on their property not ours so that was the sort of the area that he had mentioned about people coming through is the piece on this side of the property line but we sort of anticipate that like in a lot of developments that that area may be sort of in absorbed informally into the backyards of these properties and that they may informally take care of those areas we can't mandate that but that's usually the way it works out in neighborhoods where somebody's got a fence 10 feet off the line and the neighbor on the other side ends up taking care of that property. As I mentioned, we'll take another run at KU about the existence of the utility easement. I can't remember if it's here or here, about the width of it to see what can be done there. If nothing can be done, one thing we can do is maybe plant some trees up near the front to shield that view through there. But we'll check with KU on that. And I think that's all I wanted to respond to. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commission members, anything, any questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion, statements, and or motion. Yes, ma'am. In looking at developing this property, and I understand Mr. Walsh's concerns, and I appreciate you coming down and sharing those with us, but in developing that property, it's going to become a little more populated in that area. And hopefully that will, if this goes forward, hopefully that will help you and that whole area become a little safer because there are more eyes and more people around. and you know the issue with KU you know that's something that we can't address or take into account really I mean that's pretty much their deal but I do understand your concerns so you know I'm sorry to hear that there's some mishap going on but hopefully maybe with more eyes, it'll be a better situation. That's all we can, I think, hope for. But thank you again for coming down. Any other comments? Questions? I think I would remind everyone that our staff has corrected number 15 to read the note record plat reference. Am I correct? Yes. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move for approval of plan 2014-47P with the 17 conditions. I guess you still want to leave 15. You want to deduct 15. The correct reading should be to note record reference. Okay. so we have a motion for approval with the 17 noted conditions changing number 15 we was second by miss mundy if there's no further discussion please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes thank you thank you mr. wash for coming in to the various meetings at this point I think we'll take five minutes recess Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo I think last on the agenda is a PFR, Public Facility Review 2014-3. Barb Rackers here presents a staff report on Windstream Kentucky East LLC. Well, that just took up half of my presentation. Thank you. Anyway, this is on page six of your agenda. It's item A under commission items. And this is a request by Windstream Kentucky East LLC for their office at 679 Wilson Downing Road. The property is zoned AU. It doesn't contain quite two acres. It's about one, I think it's 1.98 acres. And the 2007 comprehensive plan recommended the property for utilities. We don't have a land use map anymore, but it did recommend the property for utilities. And it hasn't changed hands, and it hasn't changed use. and so probably it would if we did have a land use map it would still be that recommendation this is the property right here and you can see there's flood plain along the eastern eastern boundary tates creek road this is wilson downing road and then the tates creek shopping center is right down here so you know where you are what they're asking to do is to put two new six six new satellite antenna dishes on on the eastern side of the property which would be right about in here and randy if you could put that second one up there please this will show a little bit better this is the property right here and what they're planning on doing this is the tree line right here there's flood plain right in here and they want to put the satellite dishes right in this area here then if you put the site plan up that'll show the exact layout here's the property line the eastern property line this is the rear property line where the residential properties These are up here. This is their parking lot, and then this is where they're planning on putting the satellite dishes. And you can see how they're laid out, these funky little three-legged things with the satellite dishes. This would be the trees right in here. They're proposing to have five at about 15 feet in diameter and one about 12 feet in diameter. And if you can put that last one up there, Randy, please, that'll show you what they're going to look like. It's this right here. So there will be a total of six in that area. And the purpose of these is to increase the link bandwidth, which I have no idea what that means, but I know it means better communication service for communication services. And that's important because Windstream plays a key role in providing internet and telephone service for Lexington, the state of Kentucky, and a lot of parts of the United States. We reviewed the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, including the 2012 goals and objectives to determine compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. there is text and there are goals and objectives that support this. There's nothing found that wouldn't support it. The goals and objectives are listed on pages two and three of your staff report and then the text that supports this is found on pages three and four of your staff report. And the comprehensive plan references destination 2040 in one of its objectives and as everybody knows probably that was a planning initiative in the Newberry administration. and the one objective that does cite Destination 2040 says that the urban county government should strive to meet local standards in order to accomplish the community's vision. We reviewed Destination 2040 because of that, and it generally has four aspects of community life, which are four general categories that were formed to provide the framework for the discussion that they had about the vision of the community. Human needs, physical growth, economic expansion, and cultural creativity were the four aspects of community life. And then those were further refined into value statements, and those expand on and provide support for each of the aspects of community life. And there is one statement from the economic expansion aspect that directly relates to this. It says, based on their stated purpose of being a leader in internet service to provide better communication services to Lexington, the state, and the nation. That statement is, we will lead in sustainability through our use of practical, environment-friendly practices and emerging technologies to bring about a safer, more resilient community. We value initiatives that improve energy efficiency through reduced energy consumption and development responsible energy sources for transportation and built infrastructure, increase the available supply of locally produced food and energy, sustain quality and self-sufficiency in our water supply, and build the community's capacity to be adaptable and flexible in response to future change. Then there were also four objectives, which are actually considered action plans in the destination 2040, and those also provide support. Those are listed on page five of your staff report. The utility companies were listed as initiators of the action plans. All of the action plans have initiators, and they consist of different agencies as well as the urban county government. So Windstream is one of the utility companies, and so they would be one of the initiators of those four objectives. And then finally, Destination 2040 lists areas of opportunity for the community. One definitely provides support for Windstream's proposal, and that is acknowledging that the future will bring growth in population and needed public facilities. Lexington will endeavor through protective, cooperative planning to address change in a positive fashion while appropriately balancing the community's needs. So we find this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the four reasons that are listed on your staff report. and we didn't have to review destination 2040 for compliance but because it is cited in the comprehensive plan it does I wanted to see if there was anything that actually referred to this and it does support wind streams proposal as well so we are recommending that you find this in compliance with a comprehensive plan and we do have one recommendation and that would be to combine the new security fence with what is existing to enclose only the new array from site visitors and to minimize any potential adverse effect on nearby residential areas this would exactly meet the direction set by the plan for wireless communication and would provide greater safety to the public and mr bernard malone and two other associates of his from windstream are here if you have any questions about anything other than staff report and i will try to answer any questions about the staff report if you have them any questions for For Barb, is there, are they, one satellite there now? Pardon? Are there one antenna there now? Can you answer that? And then also, as far as the property where it backs up to the residential houses, are there any buffering there? There are trees there, and then they plan on putting up a fence around the satellite dishes. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hi there. Good afternoon. My name is Randy Nicholas. I'm the chief technology officer and the head of engineering at Windstream. And I'm sorry, your question again for Windstream was? What is currently there? What is currently there, sir, is a central office that contains telecommunications equipment serving the local serving areas home that of that office. Are there any antennas there? There are no satellite antennas at this time. Okay, and then also buffering as far as against the residential property? I don't know if we can get the drawing back up that shows the site plan. There will be kind of an open area between a tree line that borders the area. You can see the proposed satellite locations there on that diagram. The tree line I'm referring to is towards the lower right corner. Okay. And there's a substantial tree line there that I think essentially shields these dishes from view in that direction. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Plumlee? Yes, I kind of want to follow up on the view shed of, like, from Wilson Downing. Along the front, what about the possibility of more? So if someone would be driving down Wilson Downing and look up there from the street, they wouldn't see this. Actually, I believe they would, given the size of the satellites. The ground is kind of depressed, as I understand it, as one drives by this facility. But that said, they would be in your field of view as you drove by on the street. But it would be better if it were shielded so you wouldn't see them. And you're saying you won't see them? No, ma'am, I am not. I'm saying I believe that you would see them, given their size. They wouldn't be necessarily all that apparent or startling or what have you. but I do believe that they would be visible as one drove by if you looked in that direction as you turned your head. I was just thinking about potential for her, so you wouldn't notice them so much. I don't believe that that would be the case, frankly speaking. And also, the back, all those trees are deciduous. Gee, I don't know the answer to deciduous trees. I think they probably are. Okay, I'm not promising. So children and neighbors from the back, if you could have something that would have had a 70 percent coverage in the wintertime, and so the neighbors wouldn't see those so much from the back. Yeah, please. My name is Bernard Malone. The upper right corner of this drawing, the very upper right of the page, it would be the back, correct. That is what we consider the back of the lot. The homes are on the other side. there is a very tall row of trees, a thick area of trees that are extremely tall along that back edge, as well as towards the bottom of the, from the right towards the bottom of the page on that side. So there's sort of an L-shaped giant band of trees already today that are there, that are very thick and makes it very difficult to see from one side to the other already. The rest of it is the building, the Windstream Central Office building on that side, And then the street, Wilson Downing Road that you referred to, of course, is on the lower left running like that. And I think you may have asked if they were going to be shielded. Well, now, if I'm correct, there's a space between you drive up and there's a chain link gate. Yes, ma'am. And there's this open area there. And I was thinking if there could be more of a buffer in that area also, it might be more attractive to the community. If you were asking could they be shielded, I think we can take care of that, yes, if that was the question earlier. I would personally, I would like to see that happen. Okay, that was the question, I think. Thank you. Ms. Richardson, I think I missed you chiming in before. No. Ms. Plummer. It's mixed. Okay. Okay, so we've got the proper person. Okay. May I make one? Yes, sir. One more comment? I'm sorry. We'll look at methods for shielding and we'll determine how, if that's the request. Mr. Nicholas was commenting that they are tall, and he was trying to emphasize that they are, because of the size of them, they will be visible from Wilson Downing. And so we'll have to look at how to shield. So I don't, as someone mentioned earlier as well, I can't do the engineering right here as we sit, but we understand your request. Mr. Wilson? I'll also comment that they're set back to the very back of the property, so they're a good distance. They're as far away as we can get them from Wilson Downing Road. Mr. Wilson? Just a quick question about the recommendations from the staff. Are you all in agreement with that related to the new security fence in, I guess, in addition to what you already have? We're very amenable to putting up a secondary fence inside the fence perimeter already on this property. Thank you. Any other questions? No. And I think what Ms. Plumlee was referring to, I'm sure there's trees, large trees there, they may lose their leaves during the wintertime and make things a little bit more visible. So whatever buffering you could do, that's where she's coming from. Anyone else wish to speak in regards to this plan request? No. Thank you, sir. Barb, anything else to add? No, thank you. If there's no other, I'll close it for testimony and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. I'll make a motion for approval or finding with the comprehensive plan of PFR 2014-3. Okay, we have a motion for approval that it is with the comprehensive plan. Yes, sir? To the motion maker, would that also include the recommendation made by staff? Yes. Oh, okay. So approval with the recommendation made by staff. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any comments? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. motion passes thank you any other commission items any staff items mr chairman thank you just to remind the commission of your scheduled work session next week any audience items if not i'll entertain a motion for adjournment all those in favor please say aye any opposed thank you folks Thank you.