# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - July 14, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 14, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4023 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4023?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-07-14 - **Last revised**: July 14, 2016 - **Length**: 21,190 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 convened on July 14, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Owens presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed seven agenda items during the session, covering routine administrative matters as well as substantive planning and development issues. The meeting included 13 motions and votes on various matters, with the commission approving items related to land subdivisions, development plans, and other commission business. Five members of the public provided comments during the proceedings. The commission successfully completed its business agenda, with most items receiving approval, while also handling informational items including the call to order and staff reports. ## Attendance The following members were present at the July 14, 2016 meeting: • Mike Owens • Will Berkley • Mike Cravens • David Drake • Carolyn Plumlee • Carolyn Richardson • Frank Penn • Bill Wilson • Joe Smith • Karen Mundy **Absent:** Patrick Brewer No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Planning Commission took action on 13 items during the July 14, 2016 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously by a 10-0 vote. **Administrative Items** The commission first approved corrected minutes from September 10, 2015, and minutes from June 9, 2016, on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 00:30]. **Postponements** Three development items were postponed to July 28, 2016: - **DP 2016-65** (KALUSKI PROPERTY/LEXAVE APARTMENTS) was postponed on motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 02:30] - **PLAN 2016-68F** (VIRGINIA SUBDIVISION, LOT 1 & HALF OF LOT 2) was postponed on motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Bill Wilson, with the condition that the applicant submit necessary information by July 22, 2016 [timestamp: 05:00] - **PLAN 2016-47P** (HILLENMEYER & SFH PROPERTIES) was continued for two weeks on motion by Frank Penn [timestamp: 45:00] **Approvals** The commission approved several development plans: - **PLAN 2016-71P** (TUSCANY, UNIT 11) with conditions to reduce to 100 lots until second access is developed, on motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson [timestamp: 01:30:00] - **DP 2016-63** (MAPLELEAF SUBDIVISION) and its associated waiver, both on motions by Carolyn Richardson [timestamps: 02:00:00, 02:05:00] - **DP 2016-64** (GARDENSIDE CABANA CLUB) with revised conditions, on motion by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 02:15:00] - **DP 2016-67** (KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 1, LOT 22) with conditions, on motion by Frank Penn [timestamp: 02:30:00] - **DP 95-80** (NORTH PARKWAY ACRES) reapproval with conditions, on motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee [timestamp: 03:00:00] **Policy and Administrative Actions** The commission initiated a text amendment for increased uses in the ED zone on motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by William Wilson [timestamp: 03:30:00]. They also conducted officer elections [timestamp: 03:45:00] and delegated Secretary duties to the Director of Planning and staff on motion by Carolyn Plumlee [timestamp: 03:50:00]. All voting members present were Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Frank Penn, Bill Wilson, Joe Smith, and Karen Mundy. ## Public Comment Five residents spoke during the public comment period, addressing concerns about three different development projects. **Virginia Subdivision** Bruce Simpson, representing local residents, spoke regarding the postponement of the Virginia Subdivision project [timestamp: 05:30]. Simpson requested that the applicant submit all necessary information by July 22, 2016, to allow adequate time for community review before the next scheduled meeting. **Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties** Two speakers addressed the Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties development. Doug Coffin raised concerns about tree preservation and proposed additional screening and tree planting along Sandersville Road [timestamp: 50:00]. Brian Bolton, pastor at Center Point Church, expressed concerns about anticipated traffic increases and tree removal in the area [timestamp: 01:00:00]. **Kingston Hall Development** Two residents voiced concerns about the Kingston Hall development project. Bill Woodward addressed issues related to traffic impacts and potential sinkhole problems associated with the development [timestamp: 02:45:00]. Catherine Parkins followed with concerns about traffic congestion and flooding issues that could result from the Kingston Hall project [timestamp: 02:50:00]. The public comments reflected common themes across the developments, including traffic impacts, environmental concerns such as tree preservation, and infrastructure issues including flooding and geological stability. Residents demonstrated active engagement in the planning process, with requests for additional information and time for review. ## Appointments The meeting included several key appointments to leadership positions. Four individuals were appointed to serve in officer roles for the organization. William Wilson was appointed to serve as Chairperson. Frank Penn was appointed to the position of Vice Chairperson. Carolyn Plumlee was appointed as Secretary, and Karen Mundy was appointed to serve as Parliamentarian. The appointments covered the primary officer positions needed for organizational governance and meeting procedures. These appointments establish the leadership structure with Wilson leading as chair, Penn serving in the vice chair role to assist and potentially fill in when needed, Plumlee handling secretarial duties including record-keeping, and Mundy serving as parliamentarian to ensure proper meeting procedures are followed. All four appointments were completed during the July 14, 2016 meeting, establishing the full complement of officers for the organization's operations. ## Contested Items Two significant issues drew community opposition during the July 14, 2016 meeting, both related to development projects and their environmental and infrastructure impacts. **Tree Removal in Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties** Community members raised concerns about the removal of significant trees associated with the Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties development. Residents emphasized the need for better tree preservation measures, expressing opposition to the extent of tree removal planned for the project. The community advocated for stronger protections to maintain the area's existing tree canopy and natural character. **Kingston Hall Development Traffic Concerns** The Kingston Hall development faced opposition from local residents who expressed concerns about potential traffic increases and the resulting impact on area roads. Community members worried that the development would generate additional vehicle traffic that could strain the existing road infrastructure and negatively affect the quality of life for current residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. Both contested items reflected broader community concerns about balancing development needs with environmental preservation and infrastructure capacity. The opposition centered on protecting existing community assets - mature trees and manageable traffic conditions - that residents viewed as important to their neighborhood's character and livability. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this meeting record.* ## Call to Order [timestamp: 00:00] Chair Mike Owens called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. on July 14, 2016. This agenda item served as the formal opening of the meeting session, with no additional discussion or presentation required beyond the procedural call to order by the chair. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The board reviewed and approved minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under consideration were the corrected minutes from the September 10, 2015 meeting and the minutes from the more recent June 9, 2016 meeting. Key speakers during this discussion included Carolyn Plumlee and Carolyn Richardson, who participated in the review process for the meeting minutes. The board took action to approve both sets of minutes that were presented for consideration. The September 10, 2015 minutes had previously required corrections, and the corrected version was now ready for final approval. The June 9, 2016 minutes were being reviewed for the first time since that meeting. Both sets of minutes were successfully approved by the board without any noted objections or further discussion requiring amendments. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 02:30] The commission considered requests for postponement of two development applications during this agenda item. Karen Mundy, Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, and Bill Wilson participated in the discussion regarding postponement requests for DP 2016-65 and PLAN 2016-68F. Both postponement requests were approved by the commission, allowing the applicants additional time before their cases would be heard. The specific reasons for the postponement requests and the new hearing dates were not detailed in the available materials. The commission's approval of these postponements follows standard procedure for development cases where applicants or staff require additional time for preparation, revisions, or coordination before proceeding with formal review. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 45:00] The meeting addressed several land subdivision matters under agenda item IV. Key participants in the discussion included Tom Martin and Bill Sallee, who presented details on the subdivision plans under consideration. Two specific subdivision plans were discussed during this portion of the meeting: • **PLAN 2016-47P** - Details of this subdivision proposal were presented and reviewed by the board • **PLAN 2016-71P** - This additional subdivision plan was also examined during the proceedings Tom Martin and Bill Sallee served as the primary speakers for this agenda item, providing information and responding to questions about the various subdivision proposals. The discussion covered the technical aspects and requirements of each plan as they related to local subdivision regulations and standards. Following the presentation and review of the subdivision materials, the board moved to approve the land subdivision items that were presented. The outcome of this agenda item was approval of the subdivision plans that had been submitted for consideration. The land subdivision discussion represented a routine but important part of the meeting's business, as these approvals are necessary for development projects to move forward in accordance with local planning and zoning requirements. ## Development Plans [timestamp: 02:00:00] The commission reviewed and discussed two development plans during this agenda item. Tom Martin and Bill Sallee served as the key speakers for the discussion of DP 2016-63 and DP 2016-64. Both development plans were presented to the commission for consideration and approval. The discussion covered the details and specifications of each proposed development project. Following the presentation and discussion of both DP 2016-63 and DP 2016-64, the commission voted to approve both development plans. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the deliberation process. The approval of these development plans allows the respective projects to move forward in accordance with the submitted specifications and local development requirements. ## Commission Items [timestamp: 03:45:00] The Commission conducted its election of officers and addressed the delegation of Secretary's duties during this agenda item. Key speakers included Carolyn Plumlee and William Wilson, who participated in the discussion regarding these organizational matters. The Commission addressed two primary administrative functions: • **Election of Officers**: The Commission held elections for its leadership positions, though the specific offices and elected individuals were not detailed in the available materials. • **Delegation of Secretary's Duties**: The Commission discussed and addressed how the Secretary's responsibilities would be handled and delegated among members or staff. Both Carolyn Plumlee and William Wilson contributed to the discussion of these organizational matters. The Commission successfully completed both the officer elections and the delegation of secretarial duties. The outcome of this agenda item was approved, indicating that the Commission reached consensus on both the election results and the arrangement for handling the Secretary's responsibilities going forward. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 04:00:00] Bill Sallee presented administrative announcements and updates during the staff items portion of the meeting. The primary focus of this agenda item was to inform the board and public about upcoming meeting schedules and other administrative matters. Sallee announced the date for the next scheduled meeting, ensuring all participants were aware of future proceedings. This was an informational item with no formal action required from the board. The staff items served as a routine administrative component to keep all parties informed of procedural matters and upcoming dates relevant to the board's operations. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of corrected minutes of September 10, 2015, and minutes of June 9, 2016 - **DP 2016-65** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2016-65: KALUSKI PROPERTY (LEXAVE APARTMENTS) to July 28, 2016 - **PLAN 2016-68F** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of PLAN 2016-68F: VIRGINIA SUBDIVISION, LOT 1 & HALF OF LOT 2 (AMD) to July 28, 2016 - **PLAN 2016-47P** — postponed (10-0): Continuance of PLAN 2016-47P: HILLENMEYER & SFH PROPERTIES (AMD) for two weeks - **PLAN 2016-71P** — passed (10-0): Approval of PLAN 2016-71P: TUSCANY, UNIT 11 with conditions - **DP 2016-63** — passed (10-0): Approval of DP 2016-63: MAPLELEAF SUBDIVISION with conditions - **DP 2016-63** — passed (10-0): Approval of waiver for DP 2016-63: MAPLELEAF SUBDIVISION - **DP 2016-64** — passed (10-0): Approval of DP 2016-64: GARDENSIDE CABANA CLUB with revised conditions - **DP 2016-67** — passed (10-0): Approval of DP 2016-67: KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 1, LOT 22 with conditions - **DP 95-80** — passed (10-0): Reapproval of DP 95-80: NORTH PARKWAY ACRES with conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Initiation of a text amendment for increased uses in the ED zone - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Election of officers for the Planning Commission - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Delegation of Secretary's duties to the Director of the Division of Planning and staff --- ## Full transcript Receive the help that is offered to them. Have compassion. Don't try not to get so frustrated and know that there is a solution to the problem. There is hope and there is light at the end of the tunnel. First, you have to stop using. It's hard, but it is so rewarding. I smile now. You know? The recovery process for me is like a second chance of life. And it's about hope. And if that's what I can get out, it's about hope. And it's about knowing that no matter what I've done, I can move on from it. The Thank you. And the boss don't mind sometimes if you're at the booth. At the car wash. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Talking about the car wash, yeah. Come on, y'all, and sing it for me. Car wash. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Car wash, yeah. Work and work. Well, those cars never seem to stop coming. Work and work. Keep those bags and machines humming. Work and work my fingers to the bone Work people I can't wait till it's time to go home Hey, get your car wash today Fill up and you don't have to pay Come on and give us a play Give us right away The car wash Talking about the car wash Car wash, yeah Come on y'all, let's sing it with me There's a limbo moon above You will follow limbo love Jack be limbo, Jack be quick Jack go on the limbo stick All around the limbo clock Hey, let's do the limbo rock Don't move that limbo The End The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome. It is July 14th, 1.30, so I will call this meeting to order. And ask first on the agenda would be approval of minutes, September 10th, 2015, as well. Yeah, 2015. and also June 9, 2016. I have not heard of any changes at this point. If there are any, please let it be known now or I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move corrected minutes of September 2015 and approval of the minutes of June 9, 2016. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Move on to any postponements and or withdrawals from today's agenda. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. If I could turn your attention to page 6, item C, DP 2016-65, Kalooski property. We'd request a two-week postponement to the, I believe it's July 28th meeting. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of DP 2016-65 Kalooski property for two weeks. That would be until July 28th of this year. Motion has been made in second for the postponement until July 28, 2016 of Kouliski property. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Other requests for postponements and or withdrawals? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if you turn in the agenda to page 3, item F, plan 2016-68F, Virginia subdivision, lot 1 and half of lot 2, we ask for a two-week postponement. Okay, thank you. Again, that would be July 28th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Mr. Chairman, I do, very briefly. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm representing the neighbors over there that have been monitoring this application. The issues that justified the staff's recommendation for postponement today and the technical review committees back at the end of June and the subdivision committee's recommendation last Thursday still exist. And we would ask that the applicant, if he is going to get a two-week postponement, that he file the plans that have been asked for next Friday. That would give us enough time to review those before the hearing on the 28th. So I would ask that the commission adopt a condition that the hearing be postponed to the 28th, provided the applicant submit all the necessary information that's been asked for by next Friday. And that would be just to give you all a chance to review it? Yes, as well as the staff. Of course. Okay, thank you. Mr. Carter? We can agree to that deadline. Okay. All right, thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this request? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion as they're requesting. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I move postponement of plan 2016-68F until July 28th. And adding that the applicant will file his plans by next Friday. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until July 28th with the one added condition. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Anyone else have any requests for postponements and or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll ask Mr. Salee to walk us through the consent agenda for today. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. You do have a very lengthy agenda today, but you also have a very lengthy consent agenda. And we'd be glad to review those plans that can be considered for approval, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee for a number of items remaining on your agenda. The very first plan on your agenda on page 1, item A, is a preliminary subdivision plan recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. That is Plan 2016-47P, Hillenmeyer and SFH Properties. This is an amended preliminary subdivision plan for property at 2373 and 2405 Sandersville Road. There are a number of final subdivision plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 2, item A, your meeting agenda, Plan 2016-63F, an amended final record plat for Chevy Chase subdivision unit 27. This involves property at 1229 Indian Mound Road. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item B, Plan 2016-64F, John and Carol Nelson property. This involves property with an address of 1575 Falconwood Way. The next item, page 2, item C, is on the consent agenda, Plan 2016-65, Providence Place, Section 2, and Kingston Hall, Unit 2, an amended final subdivision plat for property at 1191 and 1150 Providence Place Parkway. On page 3, item D, this plan is also on the consent agenda. Plan 2016-66F, Guest Property Unit 8B. This property is at 4115 Sperling Drive. On page 3, item E, we find Plan 2016-67, Lexmark International Incorporated, formerly known as IBM, Section 2, property with an address of 361 West Loudoun Avenue. On page 4, item G, this plat is on your consent agenda, Plan 2016-69F, an amended final subdivision plat for Wendell Subdivision Lot 2. This property has an address of 1580 Higby Mill Road. The last plat on your consent agenda is page 4, item H, Plan 2016-70F, Romney Road Properties, LLC. This property has addresses of 325 through 355 Romney Road. There are two final subdivision plans recommended for re-approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 4, item I of your meeting agenda, Plan 2013-53F, 300 West Vine, LLC property, property having an address of 307 through 315, 317 through 331, and 343 South Broadway. The other such plan is on page 5, item J, plan 2014-51F, an amended final subdivision plat for the Johnson subdivision, lot 26, for property at 455 through 457 North Martin Luther King Boulevard. There are also four development plans appearing on your consent agenda. The first is on page 7, item D of your meeting agenda, DP 2016-67, Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 22. This property has an address of 2175 Russell Cave Road, a portion of at the current time. I would point out to the Commission, at your place you do have a staff report about compliance of this development plan with your expansionary master plan requirements. And just before the meeting began, we did receive the required affidavit involving the signposting for this property, showing the signs that have been posted advertising today's meeting. We also understand there may be someone here who wishes to discuss this plan. There are three other development plans on your consent agenda. Page 7, item E, DP 2016-68, an amended final development plan for Lexmark International Incorporated, formerly known as IBM, property 740 West New Circle Road. On page 7, item F, this plan is also on the consent agenda, DP 2016-69, an amended final development plan for Hamburg Place, B5P, and B6P area. This property is at 2344 Elkhorn Road. Also on page 7, item G, this development plan appears, DP 2016-34, Adams Property, and Cadentown, Lots 3 and 4, also known as Brighton 350. This is the fifth amendment to the final development plan for property at 2985 Liberty Road. Unusually, on the second page of your consent agenda, there is one additional plan, a minor development plan recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. It appears on page 8, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2016-72, Cahill Industrial Park, an amended final development plan, a minor amended development plan I should mention, for Unit 1, Lot 6, Block A, property having an address at 1316 Cahill Drive. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, this is a very lengthy consent agenda. We want to make sure that anyone who wishes for these plans to be discussed comes to you at this time and asks that that be done. Otherwise, if no member of the Commission, no member of the audience, no applicant, or no one present today wishes for any of these items to be pulled from the consent agenda and to allow further discussion, the commission can consider approving all of these items as has been recommended by your subdivision committee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience wish to have any one of these items pulled? Yes, sir. Please come forward. Pulled or discussed? Discussed. Pulled and discussed. Yes. Thank you. My name is Doug Cawthon, and I wanted to discuss the first item on the agenda. Hello, my property. And then I did a real quick PowerPoint because I think I can... Hold on. Right now, we're just working on whether we hear it or pass it to the consent agenda or hear it as part of the full presentation. So your request is duly noted. we will pull that and hear it, and fortunately for you, it's not the first of the agenda. So hold on just a second. We'll take care of everything else, and I think you'll be back before too long. Any other requests to have any one of the items from the consent agenda heard and taken off the consent agenda? I'm sorry. Come. Yes, sir, your name? I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question earlier. My name is William Woodward. I live over in the Kingston area, and I do want to discuss the development with the road coming from the development of 2-1. Which plan is that? That's on page 6. Okay. The Kingston Hall unit one? Kingston Hall unit. Okay. All right, then. Very good. Thank you. Any other requests? to have any one of the consent agenda's items heard? If not, we've got two of them then. The first one being planned 2016-47P Helen Meyer properties and then Kingston Hall properties, which is down under development plans. Those two will be heard. Everything else is staying on the consent agenda. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, I should have asked commission members. Well, it was just a question about the page 2, item C. I think we had just postponed that item, didn't we? 216.65F, I thought. No. Oh, yeah. No, that one is also on the consent agenda. Oh, okay. I'm working on that. So, with Mr. Wilson's note, anyone on the commission wish to have any one of these items heard? So, if not, then I'll ask for a motion for approval of the consent agenda with the two exceptions. Mr. Chairman? Yes. The Kingston Hall, the one on page 7? Yes, sir. Okay. I move for approval of the consent agenda with the exception of Plan 2016-47P and DP 2016-67. Okay, motion's been made and seconded for the consent agenda as read with those two exceptions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. So moving on to the remaining items on the consent agenda. The first one would be on page one at the bottom, preliminary subdivision plans, plan 2016-47P, Helen Meyer, and SFH properties. We'll let the staff set up and continue. And if it's all right while they're doing that, we'll take one item out of order. Mr. Cravens Mr. Chairman I want to move approval of the release and call of bonds Second Thank you, the motion has been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds from the memorandum dated July 14, 2016 Please vote when it comes up on the screen That motion passes Thank you folks Thank you. Mr. Martin, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Item 1 today is Plan 2016-47P Hill & Meyer in SFH Properties. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. How are we? No? Yeah? Tech guy says we're okay. This is a preliminary subdivision plan that is located out at the intersection of Sandersville Road and Greendale Road. Across here is the golf course. And, of course, much of this is the old Hill and Meyer nursery property. To the north here we have Chesapeake Equine, a townhouse development that you recently approved some amendments to that's under construction. And, of course, Greendale runs on out to the north. Citation is located in that direction from this particular development. As you come back down Sandersville Road towards Georgetown, of course, we have the railroad overpass in this location. One of the interesting things about this plan that you see before you today is it combines three preliminary subdivision plans into one. This area up in here was approved originally in 2005. These areas down in here were then subsequently approved in 2012 by the Planning Commission. They were recently, and I say recently being December of last year, and that's a short time for me, were re-approved by this body. And again, you see the plan before you today that is amending, bringing those three together and amending them. And primarily they've changed this area, the street system in this area. There used to be two cul-de-sacs. Basically, they've changed it to one and changed the lotting pattern in this area. There are 384 buildable single-family lots on this property. There's access at Sanders Hill Road in this location with a local street that will come through to Greendale. And again, it'll connect at Greendale. And here is also a connection at Greendale. When this plan was originally approved, along with this section, there was tremendous discussion about Sandersville Road, Greendale, the nature of the required improvements, stone walls, all entered into that discussion. It was a considerable amount of discussion that went into this. And one of the issues on Sandersville Road, of course, was the traffic that it carried, and yet there's a stone wall that was desirably protected. One of the things that was agreed upon is that the pedestrian facility is on the inside of that wall. And that was one of the things that was worked out with minimal improvements to Sandersville Road. Now that Citation Boulevard has been completed and some other connections, although I'm not aware that any traffic counts have been done, evidence would suggest from what we've been told that that has greatly relieved a lot of the traffic on Sandersville Road. But again, that is still part of the discussion that we've had on this plan with protecting the wall and the appropriate level of improvements to Sandersville Road. and I can report to you that we had a meeting with the applicant and with traffic and one of the improvements that was felt to be more important than just perhaps doing a full improvement to Sandersville Road is to make improvements to this intersection and be sure that it was a safe intersection and design correctly and provide good site distance, etc. That was one of the items of discussion. Greendale Road will have improvements done primarily on the far side when that property develops. There are stone walls all along Greendale. For the most part, they're not in very good condition, but they're there. There was considerable discussion as well about trees, and you're going to hear some of that today from folks that are concerned about this plan and its development, the appropriate nature of screening or trees, particularly on Sandersville Road. There is another interesting aspect to this plan that is a carryover, that being a limit on the number of lots that can be developed until these connections are complete, and that's a fire safety condition that is on this plan. in the past they were limited to 90 units and that is something we're working on with them still is the appropriate number of units to be built until those connections are built and dedicated there's a couple other issues one that has been rather ongoing with this And we have a, I'm going to put this up on the overhead. Oh, the overhead. There we go. There was a considerable amount of discussion in the past about greenways, trails, and the pedestrian access, particularly in this area. You can see in this area the applicant has provided a single loaded street relative to Sandersville Road and where there will be pedestrian and trail movement. What you see on your screen is a staff suggested redesign in this area to better accommodate the trail. So there's a lot of concern. There has been a lot of concern now building with our trail system when they're located in the rear of people's yards or adjacent to the rear of people's homes. That is somewhat further aggravated in this condition by a desire to have some tree screening along this way. That's another issue that enters into that discussion. So that is a design that was prepared by your green space planner in response to concerns. We have provided that to the applicant for their consideration and review. And that is before you today, whether or not that is an appropriate redesign or the existing lotting pattern that you see before you. In addition to that particular issue, and I would add that under that particular lotting pattern, they lose a lot, but it could be adjusted to where they could pick up maybe two or three additional lots. So, again, that's always a legitimate concern, and we understand that with developers and with the lots. The other issue that has recently been brought to our attention is the subject of a letter that we distributed you from the tree board. And again, that is, you can see by the date of the letter that it was brought to our attention this morning, today. And what that letter addresses is the fact that in this area of the development where a detention basin has been shown, a large number of trees have been removed. Apparently, according to information we have, there were burr oaks that had been removed in this area. Now, I'd like to let the Planning Commission know that when this was done in 2005, it was approved with a tree protection plan, and it had an inventory list included. And it did not list any oaks or any burroaks. It listed kind of your standard hackberries and cherries and those sorts of things that are very common on the property. That was done by Vander Weir and Associates. And, of course, you know Mr. Vander Weir is no longer with us. These properties, when they were done, did not list anything. As I stated before, this was mostly a Hillenmeyer nursery, and there were just a lot of groves of trees and things that were planted, but there were no significant trees and no species information on this particular plans. The plan that you see before you today does have a tree preservation plan, but again, there's no specific information on the nature of any species in the area. So just to reiterate briefly, when this area was done, and I believe this is the area of contention where the trees have been removed, the plan that was approved did not list, again, any oaks as part of that information. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, David Drake. Mr. Martin, clarify for me what you said about the net lot impact of the suggested design. Yes, sir. Now, your planning services staff did not do the layout, but your green space planner did, and she's out in the field today. That design right there loses one lot over this. If you see the dashed areas, we believe those could be lots, and we believe, and again, this is something they have to look at from their perspective. You could adjust some of the other lots and perhaps change their size and pick up another lot. But that only is a one-lot net loss with that design. Other questions for Mr. Martin? Tom, let me ask you one. as far as the tree inventory, you made reference in the lower right-hand corner over there that there is tree information for this plan. This is the tree preservation plan, and it gives us numbers and acreages, but it does not list species. Should it? It is information that is generally required. I will say when these two went through and got approved, that information was not on those plans. The tree protection was, but there was no species list. Okay. All right, then. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? Okay. If not, thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. Buddy Goodwin with Ball Homes and Al Gross are also here with me. Together we can answer any questions that you all may have. I will be very brief because I do believe that this plan is in complete compliance with all the subdivision regulations. This is a combination of three plans which basically amounts to an amended plan. This amended plan is going to be losing 100 lots from what was already approved and certified plans that we could build today. So this is not in any way an attempt to try to squeeze out any extra lots. We have met with the staff, we have met with neighbors, and we have heard all of the concerns regarding buffering, regarding tree preservation, and regarding any type of additional green space. We do have an alternative to this plan. We saw this yesterday, but we have yet to be able to fully vet it. But we have a different plan that we're going to turn into the staff that we believe addresses all of those concerns. It involves basically increasing the depth of the lots that are adjacent to Sandersville Road that are these lots that Ms. Dietz basically was very concerned about. We believe that this more than adequately addresses her concerns. It will address the neighbors' concerns that I believe you will hear, and I'm happy to answer any questions you all have or if you have any more questions after you hear from the neighbors. Questions at this point for Mr. Nicholson? Well, it sounds like we'll wait till afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. Others that would like to speak in favor of this plan? Those that would like to speak otherwise? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Your turn. Again, my name is Doug Cawthon, and I'm not opposed to the general principles of a plan. I'm sort of here to speak about the tree buffering and tree protection. And I will say that we had a meeting yesterday that at least has, you know, I think ironed out a lot of that. But I do want to show you what's there so you kind of understand it. And I did a quick PowerPoint. Just, okay. So my whole point is that we, as a community, and me as an individual neighbor, Spring Valley Golf Course is represented and the Centerpoint Church is represented here as well. and we're really the only neighbors at the moment, that we should be trying to produce buffering and screening for subdivisions like this rather than this. And those are next to each other on Leestown Road. Same thing, Leestown Road or that which is on Georgetown Road. This is the property. This is going down Greendale. That's Sanders World turning to the right. So you can see there's a lot of pretty prominent old mature trees. This is driving down Sandersville Road. A lot of mature trees, et cetera, I mean, a bunch. I mean, they're from two-inch caliper to, you know, a foot and a half around. And the majority of all I'm asking about, because I understand, you know, progress has to happen. I'm talking about the perimeter trees. I'd love to see other trees saved. That'd be great if that's part of it. But I think the choice for us is to save perimeter trees. This is just continuing to go down San Joseville Road. The end of the property is right there just before that Hillemeier sign. And all I'm trying to point out is that there's a lot of quality trees. These are some trees further down that were planted by me on Stephen Hillemeier's property just further down San Joseville Road. 12-foot trees cost less than $100 apiece. and this is what I'm suggesting for additional screening to ultimately have the kind of result that you saw. On June 14th, I asked Dave Leonard to come out and look at it, and he just very quickly identified a whole lot of trees. I'm not a tree nut saying save every single tree. I know there's bad trees, et cetera. I don't know if I can. I just kind of wanted to. Is he able to do that video or not? Takes a minute and a half. It's just seeing the property because he just identified. I mean, I think there are hundreds. That's fine. We don't need to do it. That's fine. There are hundreds, if not 500. I doubt there's 1,000, but there's between 200 and 900 trees that probably could be saved within a 10 or 20 foot perimeter from that rock wall fence, which is already going to be saved. And, you know, everybody's talked about it. All the staff has been helpful. Mr. Martin's explained a lot to me. I've learned a lot. Tim McQuarrie has explained a lot. But there is a tree protection standard, and we're trying to create significant urban aesthetic, and I think that's what I'm here asking for. You know, Lexington is a tree city since 2016, and we're trying to increase it, the canopy, which is all on the plan. And I think, you know, working together, we can accomplish this. You know, there's national tree benefit calculators on all the website. The stormwater impact is pretty significant because Spring Valley Golf Course was worried about that. I think most of those or all of those concerns have generally been addressed. But keeping those trees only helps that, and planting other trees will help it. There's energy benefits, carbon monoxide. And the biggest one is that this is, in my point of joint venture, anything I'm asking is going to help the value of the property. It's, you know, any study you find says that if you have trees on it, it's going to go from 3% to 20% value. And when you've got, you know, according to the price point, 83% of the realtors say that or 98%. So I'm hoping we're in the higher price point. But if we're not, we're still going to make those lots worth more. Sorry. So really all I'm asking is that we get an assessment. We've talked about who that should be. They've suggested someone else who I think we can probably agree on a valid third party to assess the trees, save the legitimate trees. I understand a pear is not a favored tree anymore, but there's so many significant trees if you drive down there. I wish you could see the video, but it's worth a drive down there. In the process of saving these trees, not to allow the proposed water basins, which, you know, this plan provides a lot of... This plan provides an awfully good amount of opportunity for green screen because there's already existing trees all here, and then you've got all this green space, and you've got all this green space. The only point where there was a question for me is, hey, there's not enough room here. There's 14 feet. We talked about it, and I believe you'll hear that we've agreed to add 10 more feet to allow for green screen to be planted. So, I mean, it's a golden opportunity. I don't want to forget Greendale Road because there's tons of trees here as well. This is, I'm told, a 20-foot perimeter, whereas this was only 14. so the belief is that you could save all those trees as well you know not all most so in a discussion with mr query this morning because i really didn't know this one of the questions was how do you make this happen we've agreed in principle to to i'm willing to put up half the cost of evergreens that I showed for all along Sandersville to fill in. So, you know, those cost about $100 a piece. So my theory is I can invest between $5,000 and $10,000 and add 100 plus trees. You know, I think it's worth it because they'll pay half, I'll pay half. I've talked to Stephen Hillemeier, who is a neighbor. he's willing to not do it for free but to do at a very discounted price the plantings of those additional evergreens so i think the idea is there and the only thing that's missing and tim pointed it out is that he doesn't have any power you know he can't stop the burroaks you talked about going down or anything else if you put it in a tree protection plan if you make the perimeter trees tree protected. These here as well. Because Stephen Hillmeyer's planted a lot of trees there that are basically all great buffer. Then everybody's working together. You all have some power over it as well. I think it's a great joint venture of the community, basically. And we end up with the right result. So what I've asked for is the additional 10 feet, planting the green screen, and underground utilities. You have to be careful that the utilities are on the inside so they don't gut all those trees. Because you can easily ruin a lot of trees. and I've planted a lot of trees in my life. And the other thing is the sidewalks and curbs that you avoid. On Sandersville, you only have about 10 houses where that's even an issue because of all that additional green space, so that shouldn't be very hard. When you get that additional space, you keep everything inside. Because all I'm asking for is that at the end of the day, we all end up with that versus that. And that's my ask. The tree preservation protection plan being probably the key one of it. And we've agreed on the rest. Thank you, Mr. Coffin. Any questions for Mr. Coffin? Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else like to speak on this plan? Yes, no, yes. Good afternoon. My name is Brian Bolton. I'm the pastor at Centerpoint Christian Church on Greendale Road. And I just want to say along with Doug, I agree with what he's talking about with the green space concerns. We've been out in that area for about 12 years and built a church about six years ago. So I've seen the development go over over the last several years, seeing the neighborhoods come in. We welcome the neighborhoods. But we've also seen some of the neighborhoods, like Doug's pointed out, where some of the green space just doesn't seem like it was cared for as much. It's a beautiful area of town. A lot of people don't live out there, don't realize how beautiful it is. And so we'd like to be able to keep that and be able to stand with that. One of my concerns is the development of traffic. And we were discussing just briefly, just trying to understand that. As Greendale Road is developed, Citation Road's opened. Mr. Martin said there's not been traffic studies yet. I'm concerned about the traffic that's increased on Greendale Road, or seems to. I'm a preacher. I don't know what traffic studies say. But it seems like there's been an increase on Greendale Road since Citation has opened because people learned they can hit citation, go to Greendale Road, and now we're adding in more neighborhoods in there. Better get over here and point it out. Near this corner down here of Greendale and Sandersville Road, it's not been developed and improved yet. And my understanding is that's slated to be improved when the neighborhood across the street gets developed, but we're going to be adding in 384 homes, plus there's development of some apartments and so forth down at this end. that this road traffic-wise is becoming very dangerous. And I don't know if we can do anything sooner than waiting until this neighborhood is developed or is there something that can be considered about that because the traffic is great. Right now they're actually recoding, recovering that road. And they have widened it out just slightly, maybe a foot or two, and they've actually put a blacktop that is curving around telephone poles because of how narrow it is. And so I think it should be looked at and be considered in this development if we have telephone poles that are at the edge of blacktop roads. And so our concern is that. My concern is the trees being taken down. It was two weeks ago on July 1st when we were sitting in our offices and said, why are trees coming down? Because we know this meeting has been taking place. And Doug, I messaged him and said, let me take a couple of videos. But trees were coming down. And so we'd like the preservation idea that we can have an agreement that says, hey, let's keep these trees and leave them for the beautification in a way that happens that benefits all the neighbors and the development of that new community. So just wanted to take a couple minutes and say I stand and agree with Doug and we just want to keep the beauty of that area, that side of town. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else that would like to speak on this? If not, before I move on to others. Mr. Query, do you have anything you'd like to add? Good afternoon. I haven't talked to both Mr. Cawthon yesterday at tree board meeting and just briefly with the petitioner. concerning the issue of a tree protection area along Greendale Road and Sandersville Road. Generally speaking, tree protection areas don't border public right-of-way areas, and I think that's probably why the petitioner is not showing tree protection along those two areas. I think the solution here is to put a note on the plan, to note the treatment of the stone walls and the preservation of the trees along Sandersville Road and Greendale Hills, or Greendale Road. Given that there may be improvements in the future that have to be made to those public right-of-ways, It would probably then prohibit, I guess, the petitioner, the developer, from making improvements if we denote those as tree protection areas. I hope that makes sense. But generally speaking, we don't ever see tree protection areas along road frontages. I think the petitioner is willing to craft a note to place on the plan that will suffice for the tree protection areas along Greendale and Sandersville Road. Is that correct? And Mr. Cawthon, that should help with the preservation of the stone walls and the trees along Greendale and Sandersville Road. As far as the tree removals on this property recently, that happened over the Fourth of July holidays and actually was out of town during that time and then found out later and was contacted by the developer about that particular situation. Yes, on a previous development plan, that area was not shown as a tree protection area. Talking with staff in our Division of Engineering, there was not a grading permit issued for any land disturbance to be occurring on this property in the meantime. I'm not sure exactly if it was an oversight on a contractor's behalf. I'm not sure what happened. At technical review, I think staff had actually talked a little bit about trying to denote this area as not only a tree protection area, but an environmentally sensitive area. And it's in the back corner of the property in the drainage directly across from Centerpoint Church. At one time, I think it had been proposed as part of a greenway trail system. With that being said, the trees have been removed, and they did preserve a few closer to the back property line that they're showing in the tree protection area as it is shown on the plan. I also need to add that this area is being shown on the development plan as, I believe, a regional detention basin. So we're not even sure without having reviewed construction plans if it would have even have been possible for the development to have preserved the trees. But I guess that's all a moot point at this point because they're no longer there. And the tree board, during their conversations, their discussion was really what would be the penalty at this point in this situation where someone is removing trees on a property. They're not shown on a development plan. They need to be shown. Staff has the ability during the sign-off process to ask for that. And in the meantime, now that they've been removed from the property, what is the enforcement? But that's an issue that we will have to discuss or investigate internally. Thank you, sir. Mr. Penn, you got a question? Hold on, Mr. Creary. I think the question is for you. It is for you, Mr. Creary. Okay. You have just given me the greatest past the buck story I've ever heard. If those bur oak trees were not on the inventory of that property, why weren't they? Because they're very significant trees. Did the applicant not put them on there? That's correct. Did you never look at the plan? What happened here? They are not shown on the plan. And unfortunately, we need to do that. As a condition of my sign-off, I could have asked for that, and I was going to ask for that, but they've been removed now from the site. So the advice you give developers is better to ask permission than beg forgiveness and ask permission? they should not have been doing any kind of activity on this property given that there is not an though there is a formerly approved development plan there's not this plan has not been approved by this body right there should not be any land disturbance activity occurring on this property um i can't answer why the trees were removed maybe the petitioner while i'm I've still got you here because I know Mr. Gross is going to weigh down this and that's fine. You know, it's not like this developer doesn't know what a bur oak tree is. That's correct. They have preserved many on other properties. That's my point. So I don't want to accuse anybody of anything, but I can tell you right now, somebody dropped a ball and dropped it bad. And if this body is going to function like they're supposed to function, we have to have the information to function with. before you ever have an enforcement issue, you're not going to know they're there. Right. So I don't mean to beat up on you, but I mean to tell you that we've got to fix this. You know, begging forgiveness is fine, but it's not like they don't know what a bur oak tree is. And that is exactly what the feeling that the tree board has, is that the tree protection ordinance, while it is a good thing for this community, but it's not perfect. And we haven't reviewed that ordinance since that legislation was passed in, I think, 2000. And here we are 16 years later, and we have never reviewed the ordinance at this point in time to see how effective is it. and I can tell you that it is effective but there are times when information is not shown on the plan and it is up to staff to bring that to the attention of the petitioner and this body but I'm not sure that anyone other than the person actually doing the removal of the trees is to blame when that work was never authorized by this urban county government to be on that property. It is private property, but once you submit that development plan, there should not be any activity to change the appearance, tree removals, you know, other than mowing the grass. There should not be any activity to disturb that soil out there. Thank you, sir. Mr. Gross. Al Gross, EA Partners, and it's good to be back. And speaking to Tim's situation, I'm going to digress just a minute and give you a little bit of history on these plans. And I'm going to repeat some things that have already been spoken, but I think they're important. It's unfortunate that these trees were cut down, and it was simply a mistake. Back in 2005, I believe this plan, this portion of the plan, went through this commission and was approved. Remaining portions of the plan went through some seven years later. Tree inventories were fashioned, were deemed to be complete. Documents were certified. No tree protection anywhere, but no tree inventory. So, you know, you're not going to put any tree protection around a plan that doesn't have any trees on it. And it's understandable that perhaps that conclusion was drawn. No tree inventory, no need for tree protection. We then file an amendment to these three plans at the direction of Ball Homes. The previous engineer, land planner, no longer around. and we do quite a bit of work for Ball, so they came to us to file this amendment. The purpose of the amendment was to reduce the number of lots, make the lots bigger, attend to some concerns that the Cawthons had across the Sandersville Road, and to generally create a neighborhood of what Ball might say were the highest quality homes in this area. So it was an attempt on the developer to make this a better area in terms of the housing offered. We inherited the plans. We took the plans at face value. We filed our plan two months ago. It went through a technical review committee meeting and a subsequent land subdivision committee meeting. At that technical review committee meeting, there was mention made of good trees at this particular location on the property. It was duly noted. It was passed back to the developer. Now, the developer is not a one-room office. It's a big operation. And oftentimes, communications aren't complete or it takes some time to complete them. because of concerns with the Cawthons legitimately had and Jim Schneider, the owner and operator of Spring Valley Golf Course, had, we postponed for a month. We sat down, and the focus was not at that time on the stormwater management area, the large species trees at this particular location, but it was on satisfying the concerns of Cawthon and Schneider relative to perimeter screening and relative to stormwater issues that will potentially have some impact on the golf course. So we set about doing that, and we made progress. In the interim, the decision was made to push for development of 90 of these lots basically at that corner of Greendale and the railroad tracks. And just upstream of the railroad tracks is a Ball development called Chesapeake Equine that's underway, under construction, large stormwater management facility. Inside the office, it was easy to achieve the goals of the tree protection and the conflicting stormwater management shown on this plan. We'd simply move the stormwater management on upstream onto a property that Ball owns, operates, will own and operate. and we basically killed two birds with one stone. In the interim, over the first of July holiday, somebody authorized the removal of those trees. It happened through the construction end of Ball Homes, and I think a private contractor did it. I was on my way to Florida when I got the call about this, and it was chaos and everybody knew that there was a problem and the problem was created and there was no turning back. So that's a long story on how what happened happened. There's no excuse that it happened. It could have been prevented. It should have been prevented, but it wasn't prevented. One thing Ball has done in the revamping of this development is to provide a large screening area around the perimeter of the property. And that's our commitment to Doug, is that we will maintain the Sandersville Road and Greendale Road screenings and make improvements to them. We have agreed with him in all aspects of his tree retention and addition portion of his PowerPoint. The only deviation will be Dave Leonard. We will not be using Mr. Leonard to do this analysis, but we will be using somebody of equal credential, and Mr. Query will be involved as well. And we will save and create a better environment and a better streetscape along Sandersville and Greendale because of the efforts of Cawthon and Ball Homes and the fact that this plan makes room for things that are in conflict a lot of times to live or to prosper equally. There's a stone wall. There's a proposed multipurpose path. There's a proposed sidewalk. There's proposed screening and buffering. And all I can say is that will be done in accord with the agreement we made with Mr. Cawthon. The plan will be followed up to include the notations Mr. Querrey wants relative to disturbance of that streetscape. He's right. We don't want to put a tree preservation buffer along Sandersville and Greendale. We've got a bikeway pathway to build. We've got some grading that needs to take place, some clearings, some shrub, honeysuckle, some bad trees that need to be removed. And to be positioned to where we can't get in and work with some freedom would be a burden. With that said, I suspect there are questions. I'll be happy to attempt to answer any that you have. It's unfortunate the Burr Oaks were removed. there is at least one that I have seen that is substantial that remains. Questions for Mr. Gross? Mr. Penn? I hate to keep going on this, but I'm really concerned about two things. Number one is that's where the detention basin is supposed to go, right? And we're going to move the detention basin. It's a little late to move it now. No, it's not a little late to move it. On the planet can be moved. It's a little late to save the trees. Well, that's my point. My point is this. You're asking us to trust you and not put a tree protection area where at the same time you've told us that somebody dropped the ball and we've cut down eight burrow trees or nine. We're going to put a tree protection. We'll put a tree protection area in that particular area. All I'm asking you to do is not burden us with a tree protection area along the public rights way of Sandersville Road and Greendale Hill. Are you talking about inside the rock wall? or outside the rock wall? Outside the rock wall. Well, we weren't going to plant any trees there anyway, were you? Yes. Outside the rock wall? Well, when you say outside, I'm talking about inside the development. On the development side of the rock wall, we are going to plant trees. Now, if you want to put a tree preservation area between the rock wall. No, you can't do that. It's like four or five feet to start with. My question to you is that this plan, and part of it's staff problems, part of it's a lot of other things that happened here. We can't put those trees back. I want to get this fixed, so not just for ball homes, but for anybody else that develops a piece of property that doesn't list a tree inventory. Because that's where the ball was dropped way back when. It's not your fault. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. That's where the first ball was dropped. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. What matters is what we learn from it. And my concern right now, Mr. Query, and I'm directing this at you, is that we fix whatever's wrong here so this kind of thing can't happen again because it's not that it's the end of the world, but it is for nine pretty significant trees that are pretty rare. I agree, and this does not happen often. I don't know that it has ever happened before. Well, we obviously can't prevent it. Well, we do a pretty good job of preventing it. Not with the absence of a tree in the door. Not on this particular instance. I mean, if you want to point at this microcosm of the development process in Lexington and say this is a bad thing, I have to agree with you. It is bad. And that's where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to belittle any particular development plan. I'm very disappointed what happened here. I'm not happy about it either. But what I am concerned about is that we don't send the message here today, it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. And that's my concern in this whole thing overarching the whole deal here, is that we fix this where we prevent this, but the other thing is we make Sandersville Road look the best we possibly can make it look, and I think you all want to do the same thing. I think we do want to do the same thing. We've told Mr. Cawthon that we'll help him and Mr. Hillenbeier that we will help them do that. Mr. Corrie, excuse me, Corrie, something to add? I can say that a representative from Ball Homes did call me immediately to inform me about this oversight. I think it was an honest mistake. I think the people with that organization that are in charge of development were making every attempt to try to work with us to preserve the trees. However, a lot of times what we see on development is the person that's operating the heavy equipment doesn't get that message. And I truly think, after discussing the issue at length with the representative from Ball Homes, that whoever this operator was didn't get that message, and it's unfortunate. Ms. Plumlee, question? Yes. Obviously, the Nine Burr Oaks suffered an egregious assault, and that can never really be rectified. But my question now, I guess either to Tim probably, is what will the canopy be for the whole development? They still have to meet the required 30% tree canopy, which they have based this plan on the fact that those trees were never included. And that's why we were going to talk today, hopefully, or at least during my sign-off, that those would be included. So whatever number is shown on the plan that they're going to have to plant to make the 30 percent, I know that they'll do that. It's just you're planting a 2-inch cowper tree versus trying to preserve possibly a 38, 40-something-inch burrow. And you can't replace that in our lifetime. Yeah, Mike. Yeah, Al, how were you going to fix that problem right down there where the staff tried to redesign the lots? You said you had a solution. I think I got the staff's concept this morning. I sent an email back to Tom that we had already, in our conversations with the Cawthons, decided to move this road, which is a road that's parallel to Sandersville Road, an additional 10 feet in that direction, and allow all that additional width to be placed outside the back of the lot. I mean, I want you to understand that these lots will be a particular depth. I think the minimum depth is 130 feet. Between the back of the lot and the edge of the wall, for example, will be future either HOA-maintained area or, in the best of worlds, future public right-of-way. So it won't be in the backyards of these homeowners. It won't be their responsibility to maintain it, to keep it up. Other questions? Mr. Nicholson, anything bad? not at this point. Mr. Martin. I just wanted to clarify, and it goes in line with what Al just mentioned to you, and what Tim had mentioned when they talk about the trees and the walls. There is a note on the plan where the applicant has agreed to meet the stone wall ordinance, and that addresses the stone walls. It's very important to know that any note that we're talking about being worked up relative to the trees is relative to their placement in relationship to those walls and the trail. And I just want to be real clear about that. That didn't confuse anyone or the planning commission about what we're talking about. It's the placement of the trees to help protect the walls. Now, our Stonewall Ordinance, by the way, does not have a maintenance requirement. It's just when they do go to restore them, if they choose to restore them, then they have to work with our historic preservation folks and bring them up to our standards. Okay. Yes. So, Tom, these resolves down here, maybe number 16, is that adequate to do what we've heard here today? Yes. Yes. I think we're... Yes, staff is happy with the resolution. The discussion we've had here will... Yes. Other questions from Mr. Martin-Wally? Is that there? Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm not sure if this is for you or not, Tom, but in some of the information we were given today, there was, I think, a request that the trees not be placed within utility easements or whatever. I don't think that's something, and maybe I'm not quite on top of whatever was being asked for, but I don't think that's something that the developer can necessarily have any say over. I think that's up to the utility company as they're putting in the easement where that easement goes and what can be on it or not on it. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. And the type of tree in the utilities will approve smaller trees. That's what they'll do. I just want to be sure that they're not getting themselves in a bind with something that somebody's asking for that is not going to work right. Yes, ma'am. And that was one reason I wanted to clarify that we are talking about a note that will specify locations and screening relative to the wall and appropriate screening and not just a blanket line of trees. Right. Exactly. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gross. Let me speak to that just a moment, just to help Doug get happy with it, if nothing else, and also to address your specific concern. We're going to create, adjacent to the stone wall, about a 25-foot-wide corridor between the stone wall and the back of the lot. And that's going to be for a path on Greendale Road. It's for a sidewalk. It's going to be for tree preservation. which includes removal of some trees, removal of undergrowth, taking down things that need to be taken down. And it's also going to include the addition of additional screening. Some of that screening is going to come from Ball. Some of it's going to come from Hillemire, apparently, at least maybe some sweat equity. And some of it's going to come from Doug. Okay, that's a corridor that I think we can keep utilities out of. I see no reason why we can't. So you can put utilities in the back of this lot. That is going to be, as I spoke of just a minute ago, kind of the boundary of private ownership. So I think we can do that. And that's what we represented to him yesterday. And I think, I hope that clarifies it. Certainly it's on the record now, didn't it? So a note on the plan will do that? We'll get to that in a second. Mr. Coffin, anything to add? No? Okay. Any other questions from commission members? I asked that question. Yeah. Yes. Mr. Penn is asking about will a note on this plan or a condition address these things. I'm going to make a couple comments here. One, I think it's obvious that it's very troubling when mistakes occur to this degree. And these type of trees are removed. You know, we've got a letter from the tree board here that is fairly harsh. and I would dare say that future discussions as far as trees and tree canopies, I would say that the Planning Commission will look at it rather seriously. Not that we haven't in the past, not that the staff hasn't in the past, But, you know, with the absence of nine significant trees, it's definitely been brought to our attention. You know, I'm hearing compromises, agreements, and so forth, but, you know, I'm not seeing it at the present time. The staff hasn't seen it. myself, I would feel very comfortable to continue this for two weeks. We've got the time. We don't have to make a decision until the end of the month. And let the applicant and Mr. Cawthon work together, come up with some renderings, and come up with some language that would address these concerns and make everybody feel a little bit more comfortable, particularly since we've got several apologies that's been going on here. Personally, I think that would be a good move to make to try and provide confidence back here. Yes, sir? I'm not going to try to talk you out of voting any way you want to vote on that, but just keep this in mind. you get to see the final record plat for every one of these lots every one of these sections every one of these promises we're making that's where the rubber meets the road after the development has been completed the trees have been planted the walls have been fixed either we've done what we've said we're going to do or we haven't if you want to invoke a penalty at that time or delay things to further consider i think that's the time to do it that's the most important plan, the final record plan. In discussion today with my staff, it was like this is a subdivision plan. We're not going to be seeing final development plans. We'll be seeing final record plats. You'll be seeing a final record plats. You'll be seeing your staffs will be seeing construction drawings, division of water quality be involved. I understand. The green space planner will be involved. There is, again, I'm not going to I'm not going to try to change your mind on how you want to vote on the postponement. But just keep in mind that there's a lot of process that this plan has to evolve through before one lot is created. Thank you, sir. Staff, can you clarify this? It was my understanding that this is where we need to iron this thing out right here and now. I want to see the development plan. Maybe you can do it at the final. A final record plan, when it goes to record, it is based on the fact that all infrastructure, easements, everything's been done in conformance with the submitted plans. Which means? That is based on this, the infrastructure, the streets, commitments, trees, those things will have been done when they go to record. You're saying it's based on this plan here? That this is the preliminary subdivision plan and a record plat goes to record. So it should be hammered out here. Well, again, I would agree it's a little bit of both. I think you've heard commitments. Things are going to be done. I don't think staff has any problem with language in a note, which then again is enforced. They do it and then they go to record. Okay. Mr. Nicholson. I'm in agreement with Tom right there that a lot of this can be handled in a note, but also that there is language on these with the resolves that these people have to look at it. Commitments have been made today that Tim Query is going to have to look at, Tom's going to have to look at, and they're going to have to make sure that we're in compliance with what we've committed to today before this thing gets certified. So I understand that. I don't know if it needs to be hammered out right now. That's all. Okay. Thank you. I'm about ready to close this as far as any testimony or open it up for discussions. Before I do so, I'll ask one last time from the commission. Any questions for anyone? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motions. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I can't find my screen is such that I couldn't get attention. In your request, what additional would we get that's not covered in the conditions that are listed now? There's been a lot of discussion here today and thoughts, and everybody's saying, oh, well, yes, we'll agree to that. But at this point in time, you know, exactly what are they agreeing to? We saw a drawing that the staff put up of changing the lotting patterns on some things. the applicant is saying now, well, we'll agree to back this up X number of distance. I would just like to see the language specifically and renderings so that everybody is on the same page, simply put. Ms. Plumlee? That helps me. Thank you. Thank you. I have a pretty good imagination, but sometimes my imagination doesn't match everybody else's opinion. So I, too, would like to continue this and see some more black and white renderings of just where we're going with this. We've had a pretty good bomb dropped on us with nine burroques coming down. So a couple of weeks, just give it back off and look at it again. Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, thank you, folks. And I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for two-week continuance and so we can see what we're actually going to have. And I think in light of what's happening here today, that's not an unreasonable request. Thank you. We've got a motion, and Ms. Plumney, did you second it? We've got a motion for a continuance of two weeks, which I believe, as we said earlier, takes it to July 28th of this. It is a continuance. Any discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes, so we have a continuance for two weeks. Next on the agenda, on page 2, is Plan 2016-71P, Tuscany, Unit 11. We'll let the staff set up for that. Thank you. Bill do you want to use this? You want me to use this? You want me to use this? You want me to do it now? Or you want me to wait there? Go ahead and do it. Go ahead and do it. Backside. Backside. Backside. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, giving us just a moment. It's on page 2, item B, Plan 2016-71P, a preliminary subdivision plan for Tuscany, Unit 11. This property is a part of 1970 Winchester Road, but it is really centrally located in the Tuscany development. I'd like to take a couple of minutes to try and get the Planning Commission oriented to exactly where this unit of Tuscany is in the broader sense. We have an exhibit to my right that will in part do that, and then I also have an aerial photo I'd like to show you that's a little more localized to the plan that you have. The plan is on my far right, and I'll get to that in just a moment. This exhibit shows Winchester Road heading towards town, so north is in this direction sideways, and we turned it that way so we could orient the development the same. north is to the right side of both drawings. This is Sir Barton Way here. Of course, a very prominent signalized intersection here. Old Rosebud Road is a collector street in this area that borders the West Wind subdivision directly across Old Rosebud from the subject site. There are two facilities on Old Rosebud Road that have recently been developed that abut this particular unit. There is an elderly housing apartment development on the corner of Villa Medici, also across from Ogden Way in West Wind, and an assisted living facility, a much larger facility, centrally located on Old Rosebud between those two roads and also Flying Ebony Drive. Old Rosebud currently terminates just a short distance from Flying Ebony. Unit 11 is bounded by those two facilities and also by existing lotting in the Tuscany development. This is Pascoe Place, which you may be familiar with, one of the main streets through the Tuscany development as it exists. Unit 11 is bound by that unit and by a prominent floodplain and creek that flows again to the north through this particular area. The subdivision plan, its preliminary subdivision plan, proposes 102 single-family lots. Generally, they're at 80 and 90 feet widths. Staff would note we've not seen lots of this size in a number of years. Again, Villa Medici is built to this point. We have the elderly housing apartments here and the assisted living facility here. It is bound by the floodplain on this side. There are existing trees in the area, both along the floodplain and two different tree lines here. And I point those out because that will help reference the aerial photo that I'd like to also show to you. Thank you. Again, this photo is not oriented quite the same. We have Old Rosebud here. Villa Medici is here. So Unit 11 is in the upper left-hand side of the photo. You do see the two facilities that I mentioned earlier. This tree line is really the boundary of Unit 11 along with the floodplain and greenway and this tree line that you see here. So Unit 11 does extend just a little bit off the top of the drawing, but you are looking at most of it if you're looking at the upper left portion of this particular photograph. The subdivision plan was reviewed by your technical and subdivision committees and is recommended with ten conditions and two discussion items by your subdivision committee. The first eight are typical sign-offs from different agencies of the urban county government, as you see with most of the plans that are on your agenda today. Condition nine, to denote the record plat information. That is primarily for this particular unit, which is identified, and if there is any other adjoining information about recorded units. Condition number ten, to denote easement for street tree planting. The cross section for the streets indicates that street trees will be outside of the utility strip. That's not prohibited by the subdivision regulations, but it is not the most often chosen path. So we would just like a notation that that will be street tree planting easements, which are consistent with our subdivision regulations. We don't see that as any difficulty in terms of a condition. There are two discussion items that resulted from both the tech committee and the subdivision committee reviews. The first, discuss future of adjacent greenway. Again, this area being a floodplain, there is potential for this to be a greenway in the future. We have discussed that with the applicant's engineer, and they will have some additional information for you that I think will be very helpful in your consideration of this plan today. They do have a plan for the future of the greenways in this area that we did not discuss last week at your subdivision committee. There is also one other discussion item about discuss potential floodplain crossing for pedestrians, and the last three words were added at your subdivision committee, and vehicular options. The photograph shows that there is currently a crossing of the floodplain in Greenway in the upper left corner of the slide, and it is very near the corner of this unit, which again is the tree line. So when the staff reviewed this plan, we wondered, is this the best location for a greenway crossing for pedestrians? As we discussed this at your subdivision committee last week, representatives from the Division of Fire and Emergency Services also asked about the potential for future vehicular crossings because they have a limitation on the number of lots that they like to see with one way in or one way out. This subdivision is just over the number that they like to see on a maximum level, being at 102, I believe 100, 100 is their maximum that they like to see in any situation. There is an opportunity for future street connections to undeveloped parts of Tuscany, and here is one that is perhaps shown as a potential crossing in the future. We talked about the potential of another intersection to Old Rosebud last week at your subdivision committee meeting. So these are the types of discussions that were held last week that really led to the addition and the revision to this last condition, number 12. We have not received a revised plan. As I mentioned, though, I have had a conversation with Mr. Gross about the development, and I'm confident that he will give you some additional information. I think at the end of that we will have had the discussion and then we'll see if the commission has enough information to go forward with the plan as has been recommended by your subdivision committee or if you'd like to see any revised information before you do so. Before you hear from Mr. Gross, I'd be glad to answer any questions from you about the subdivision committee recommendation or the past staff reviews of this preliminary subdivision plan. Questions for Mr. Sally? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Crose. Thank you. We've got things really turned around for you. I'm going to orient these the same. I'll speak mainly to this one. This is the plan that's in front of you today, what's outlined in pink. Currently, Unit 9, which you approved a couple months ago, is basically under construction. in association with the construction plans and the construction of unit 9 there'll be a stormwater management area built in the greenway it's been referred to for the last decade as pond t and it is going to be under construction soon and it it will form the embankment for a road that will in essence cross from this road yet to be built that ties into newly constructed meeting street The dark lines you see are the constructed roadways, the major constructed roadways. And this will be the pedestrian and vehicular access in the future across the greenway. The greenway is colored green instead of blue, and it's a large expanse of floodplain where a multi-use trail is proposed to be built at developer's expense and as it becomes timely. So I think or I hope that gives you the information you need to get comfortable with, discuss future adjacent greenway. Yes, there will be a future adjacent greenway. Yes, it will be maintained by the developer until he turns it over to the owners association. Yes, we hope the urban county government ultimately takes control of that greenway and that stormwater management facility, which on a community-wide basis, what they should be doing. Discuss potential floodplain crossing for pedestrians and vehicular options. There it is. We're not building it. We're building the hard part with Unit 9 because we need to control the storm water, need to manage the storm water. The rest of this will be built as future sections develop, as we bring additional lots to this group. and they decide it's time to create that crossing. This is a crossing, by the way, that on the zoning development plan, when this piece of property was originally zoned, there was no crossing. So it's been added as a byproduct of a lot of give and take between the developer, planning commission, the planning staffs, division of engineering as a necessity for good transportation routes. School has come to fruition. If you haven't been out there, you can drive Meeting Street now, so you can really get an idea where a school is going to be. So I hope this answers your question. I agreed with the bill this morning that we gladly restrict the number of units in 11 to get below the threshold that the fire department wants, be that 100 or be that 90. so that will be a note on the plan that I hope you're happy with staff being able to direct Questions for Mr. Gross? Thank you Mr. Gross Mr. Gross you were talking about the embankment being built and at some point in time we're going to have down the road in the future access pedestrian vehicular access across through there. You know, with the upper piece being built and now this one coming on board, how soon do you think that embankment will provide the access that we're asking about, talking about? Well, you're asking about access across the greenway, as I understand it. So once Ponte is built, which will be hopefully by the end of the summer, not by the end of the summer, by the end of the winter, you'll have access for pedestrians across the greenway. And that will also be the roadbed, the future roadbed. Correct. So if your question is when will the road be built to connect this section of Tuscany with this section of Tuscany, if that's your question, it will be later as these units develop and as potentially more of this develops. the plan that we're talking about right now you're asking for approval i'm presuming that's going to go forward you hope it does i don't think it's the driver for that connection though you don't think it is i don't think it is and i don't think i don't think your staffs think it is either or they'd be talking about building and we're trying to accommodate everybody as far as FAR as well. So, okay. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak on this? No? Very good. FAR, do you want to weigh in? Good afternoon. I believe I heard Mr. Gross state that he was willing to put in a note limiting it to 100 units until the second access is built, and we're fine with that. You're fine with that? Yes, sir. Surprising two lots make that much difference, but okay. It's an NFPA standard. I understand. Okay, very good. Any other questions from anyone? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion or motions. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Is everybody ready for a motion? One second. Ms. Plumlee? Should we make a condition 13 reduced to 100 lots? That might be a good idea. Let me ask this. Mr. Sally, the 11 and 12, are those resolvable with what's been said? I believe that they are. I think you've already heard answers to both of them. They could potentially even be deleted. I think this exhibit will be part of the record. We'll have a copy of it in the file, a copy of it in the minute book, and we can refer to it in the future if we need to. Do you see a need for number 13, as Ms. Plumlee suggested? I'm sorry, I did not fully hear the condition earlier. I suggested that on the plan, condition 13 would be to reduce to 100 lots because there are 102 now. So that would satisfy the fire folks. Yes, that would be appropriate. Or a new 11 if you delete the two. Okay, thank you. Other questions before we have a motion that I think Mr. Craven is ready to go with? Mr. Cravens? Yes, sir. We'll move approval of Plan 2016-71P, Tuscany, Unit 11. And is 11 and 12 gone? No, they're resolvable. Resolve? Okay. 11 and 12 resolve and 13, I think, is going to say something like 100 lots. Reducing two. Okay. We do have a motion on the floor with now 13 conditions, with 13 reducing the number to 100 lots. Any questions? Yes. We've got a second by Carolyn Richardson. Question. Question, yes, sir. That is until such time the second access is developed. Yes. Yes. Okay. That's all right. I'll accept that. Ms. Richardson? Yes. Okay. So further questions? Everybody understand? If so, I'll call for a vote. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Gross. we will move on if everyone's okay with that. Do you need a break? Move on. I believe we moved to page five at the bottom of the page under development plans, Maple Leaf subdivision. We do have a revision that's on a pink sheet that is before you. And then also we do have a waiver. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The Maple Leaf subdivision does have a waiver. There's not a revision. the revision is for Gardenside Cabana. Good afternoon. As you said, we're on the bottom of page 5. This is Maple Leaf Subdivision, DP 2016-63. We're not too far from where we just were. We're off of Manowar and Maple Leaf. We have a shopping area, shopping center. It's partially built. We have some of it that's been approved but not yet built. We have the cinemas and a bank and Liberty Road's up in this direction. They came in with this development here to propose a write-in into the subdivision or into the shopping center off of Manowar Boulevard. There was a lot of discussion, and they wanted write-in, write-out, but there was discussion with traffic, and they came up with the write-in only. I was going to say, with that, we only had nine conditions. The first eight are typical sign-offs with different governmental agencies. And then we have the condition nine is whether the Planning Commission grants a waiver for approval for the entrance into this shopping center off of Manowar. and Tom is going to present that part to you. If there's any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission. The waiver that is associated with this development plan is, as Ms. Gulp has said, is for this entrance on Manowar into the commercial development, into the shopping center. This is rather different than what you're used to seeing for Manowar. You're either going to see a full access point. What you have seen and what you have approved in recent history have been write-in, write-outs. A couple of those have actually been modified designs, write-in, write-outs as well. This one is simply a right in and an associated deacceleration lane as well. The consensus among the parties involved is that this will help relieve a lot of the problems with this intersection, with the heavy traffic in the area, by allowing folks that want to come to this shopping center, Instead of coming here and hitting this access point or this one, they can just come into here. And as Ms. Galt explained, this is partially built out. You can see there's a lot more that will hopefully be built in the future. As I pointed out, they do have two access lanes onto Maple Leaf Drive. This is approximately 420 feet or so right here from this access to the center line here. The last one you approved was for Kroger's, Boston Road. That was about 460 feet for a right in, right out. So they're somewhat similar in that that's a commercial shopping center, as is this, and they requested that access to Manowar as well. staff is recommending approval of this access point just one way in one way out i mean not out just one way in with the desal lane and design to the approval of the division of traffic engineering as well as your bike and ped planner to be sure that you know we can safely get our pedestrians across that access point you can see the throat into here there is some cross traffic movement from parking and that sort of thing, but this appears to be deep enough, and this could be signed and that sort of thing to make sure there's no conflicts as traffic comes into the shopping center. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have. Questions, Mr. Martin? Ms. Plumlee? I don't know if this is for you, Tom, or for traffic, but how long, how many feet is a desail lane? It varies on that one. I don't know how long it is. I'd have to measure it again, and that is why it is subject to traffic's approval, because sometimes, depending on the traffic and the circumstances, how much frontage is available will dictate just how long it will be or can be. An example, you may recall Herdsburg Road and Springs Development. That one was, as long as we could get it, on their frontage. Occasionally on some of these others, they may be somewhat shorter. So is this like halfway? Tony may know, and again, Casey, I'm sure would be glad to address what she may have in mind. I will attempt to clarify. Our agenda does still read provide a right in, right out turn on the man of war. That was part of the discussion, which is being handled by your waiver. Very good. Other questions? Yes, sir. So you just said we approved one that was 460 feet that was right in, right out. But we're not approving this one for right out that's 40 feet shorter. Is that the reason? Traffic found that at this location to be a very significant concern for them, yes. And Ms. Calcutta could explain that to you. Okay. The difference in that one and this one is the location of the right in slash right out to the signalized intersection. In the Boston Road one, the proposed new location was upstream of the intersection, whereas this one, if you're driving, it is before you get to the intersection. Traffic's concern was with that right out. There just wasn't enough room before the signal for traffic to maneuver if they wanted to go to the far lane. another concern was vehicles trying to turn right onto maple leaf you know if they didn't want to come in the right end having those cross movements of them trying to make the right at the signal so it's better be upstream it looks like the desal lane that they're showing is around 100 foot that you think it's more? I did a little quick scale. And we have some kind of standards we go by to ensure that there's sufficient length there to get the cars off the main main of war. So that's something that will be handled with my sign-off to ensure that they get the required length. Thank you. Yes, sir. Anything? Tony Barrett here with Barrett Partners. I just agree with the conditions and ask for your approval of the plan and the waiver. Thank you. Others that would like to speak on this plan? Questions from the commission? If not, I'll close this part and open it up for any other discussion among commission members and or motions. So motions, if this thing does go forward, I'd like two motions, one for the development plan and one for the waiver itself. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2016-63 Maple Leaf Subdivision. with the conditions stated. Thank you. Motion is made and seconded for approval of DP 2016-63 with the nine conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then for the waiver. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the findings for petition of waiver of land subdivision regulations for DP 2016-63 Maple Leaf subdivision. Thank you. And seconded by Ms. Mundy. Thank you. So please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda is our pink sheet now. It's Gardenside Cabana Club. We do have a revision that, as I mentioned, is on a pink sheet. It's DP 2016-64. Yes, sir, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, This is DP 2016-64 Gardenside Cabana Club, Parkside Subdivision. As was stated by your chairman, you do have revised conditions passed out to you on this lovely pink paper. I felt like it should have been baby blue. Today is my son's birthday. I'm not going to tell you how old he is. This is the third phase of an affordable housing development that is located at Cross Keys Road and Maywick View Lane, which is a private road or access easement that curls back up to Alexandria Drive. And, of course, Cross Keys goes up and meets Alexandria Drive as well. Kroger's is back up in this direction. And as you go out that way, it would be towards Vercel's Road. Back in here is a creek and a park and some other aspects of the neighborhood. We have here, as I said, phase three. You've approved phase one, phase two. It is an affordable housing development. It has been successful, the staff's understanding. Now they're back in with Phase 3. They're adding 36 units. There's a variety of bedrooms. You can see the associated parking in this location. There is cross-parking and access for the development. The plan as originally submitted raised a concern, and it was really the major concern was just that Phase 1 and 2 were not included at this time. This is a major development plan. This is the third phase. It is an integrated development. They gave us a revision that addressed the retaining wall locations that you see here. We do have a condition that they designate the height of those, and that is because, as you all are aware, over a certain height they are engineered structures. We like to see them on a development plan. we've had some unfortunate surprises on some other developments at times with retaining walls. They have addressed some minor things such as dimensions, typical parking, typical aisle widths. We did revise the condition that expressed our concern with this information. We would like to see Phase 1 and Phase 2 added prior to certification. The key is they're integrated, but I think most importantly, as you may recall, there's an ingress and egress easement that serves the entire development from Cross Keys. And it's important to be able to see the parking and see that access. You can see they've outlined some of the buildings. Well, again, this is a matter of making sure we have all the appropriate site statistics and information coordinated on what will be the final version of this development plan. And with that, staff is recommending approval. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Nope. Thank you, sir. Applicant? I'm like Tony. I'm in agreement. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, any questions from the commission? If not, we'll close it and entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. I can't get my mic on. I move approval, Mr. Chairman, for DP 2016-64, Gardenside Cabana Club, Parkside Subdivision, Phase 3, amended. With the 14 conditions as recommended by the staff. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with revised conditions, DP 2016-64. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Everyone still good? We'll move on to the bottom of page 6. It's Kingston Hall, Unit 1, DP 2016-67. Continues on page 7, seeing 16 conditions. And I will, while they're setting up, I will mention that this briefly came out on an agenda that said the committee's recommendation was postponement. That was quickly changed as committee actually recommended an improvement with the 16 conditions. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission. This is a final development plan for a property known as Kingston Hall Unit 1. Kingston Hall is part of the Providence development as well. It is located between Newtown Pike and Russell Cave Road. You can see this is 75 and 64. Now what's a little different about this, and this is a 29 acre site, it is situated sort of in the center of the development. And what you've seen for the most part has been development to the west off of Newtown Pike and along that part of Providence Parkway where the farm finance has gone in and some other developments that are close to the commercial developments around the motels in that area. This particular plan is proposing a three-story professional office building with associated parking. It is over 102,000 square feet in the building. The The parking is 354 spaces, so it's a rather large professional office and associated parking. You can see areas of green here with detention in this location. They will have the ability to develop more in the future should they choose to. One of the interesting things about this is Aspiration Drive, and it goes to Destiny Way, which leads to Providence Parkway. And that's the insert that you see here. Providence Parkway is the collector that was designed to serve the AMP recommended collector to serve all the ED land in this area. It is designed to go from Newtown Pike eventually all the way over to Russell Cave Road. What your parkways do in the AMP is they serve as the backbone to that development to allow your local streets to connect to and provide the local service necessary to the development. And this is a prime example of that in that, again, Aspiration Drive and Destiny, and here's Destiny coming up, you can see this is the local street system. It's dependent upon Providence Parkway being extended. And it was important that Providence Parkway be included on the development plan in order to comply with the ordinance for exactions. And it's an exactable, it's required, it's required that it be built so it's an exactable feature of your expansion area. And as part of the agreements that the city works out with the developer, it's necessary to have this on a final development plan when they structure the agreement. Now, this section has already been let to bid. There's been ads placed, and they are moving forward with building Providence Parkway. You may recall you had a plat before you that was approved with several waivers that created this property, dedicated this right-of-way, and that was to facilitate the transfer of the property. And this body granted them some waivers at that time. they posted a 100% bond to cover the infrastructure at that time. There is one significant tree. We've talked about trees. There's a large 48-inch elm tree in this location that will be protected. You can see the nice setback off the street. The entrance that they have proposed here is one way in and one way out from Aspiration Drive. There is an EMP compliance report that has been filed or supplied to you. Staff reviewed the statements that were provided by the applicant. The EMP elements in this area are your basic elements, the future land use element. Of course, ED is what they're proposing. It is what is zoned for and recommended in your EMP. There is a design element that they are addressing. They're not modifying the site in any great degree. They're trying to work with the existing topography. They have a nice setback and a lot of open space. There is an agreement or a requirement in UAMP that there be a pedestrian system. Well, there is along the right-of-ways of the streets. There will be a pedestrian system serving the area. Perhaps the key, besides the parkway, that is a key infrastructure element, and as I stated, it does anchor this area. There is also the infrastructure improvement of the sanitary sewer trunk line and the pump station that has not yet been constructed. And you all are well aware that's been discussed as other developments have come in to develop in this area. The pump station is located off in this area of the development, you may recall. And that's to be constructed. It's in the design phases. It has not been constructed as yet, and that is a government project. So this development, as some of the others, are going to put in lines where necessary and utilize the existing pump station that is near Newtown Pike and in the commercial development. That pump station has been upgraded, and there has been no reports of any problems from our water quality people with the ability for that to handle development as it currently stands. No doubt in the future, if we get a whole lot of development, that's going to really dictate the need for that new pump station to come online. With that, staff has recommended approval of the plan. We have made a finding that the plan does comply with your EAMP as well. And if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Questions? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. We have a note that this plan requires a posting of a sign and affidavit. I gather that has been done. Yes, ma'am. That was reported to you on the consent agenda by Mr. Sally, because this was originally on the consent agenda. Oh, that's quite, they have to do that, yes, ma'am. And as you know, sometimes that doesn't happen. Other questions? If not, applicant? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing the developer on this, Dennis Anderson. and Al Gross is here representing the buyer of this lot. Dennis will be the seller of the lot. And this is a development plan actually prepared by the buyer of it. I do want to state for the record on this that we did submit our signed affidavit and photograph at the beginning of the hearing. And as you all know, you've seen this before. I think in April you all approved our plant, which actually created this lot, and you gave us the ability to build the parkway and the roads at the same time that the building is being built in order to accommodate the buyer of this property. Just to report to you, since that time, we have had our developer agreement approved by the Exaction Credit Committee of the city and the Urban County Council. They approved the agreement and ratified it a week ago tonight. So that has been done. As Mr. Martin mentioned to you, the portion of Providence Place Parkway, which was shown on that plan, has been put out to bid. And I know Dennis wants to get underway with that just as quickly as he possibly can. We added the road to this. Our original filing didn't show the roadway on this because we'd already platted it off, and the plat actually dedicated the right-of-way. But as the staff explained to us, this is the way on development plans or where they keep track of the exaction fees. As you all know, this lot is about 22 acres. There's about seven acres of right-of-way on here. Every acre of property out in this expansion area has to pay exaction fees of about $40,000 per acre. It's just under $40,000 per acre. That includes the right-of-way. So Dennis Anderson will have to dedicate the road to the city, pay for building the parkway, and on top of that, he has to pay $40,000 per acre exaction fees on the acreage underlying the road which he's building and paying for. And I'm not here to object to that, but sometimes people don't understand that. I know you all do, but sometimes other people don't understand that all those costs go into development in the expansion area. So staff asked us to show the roadways on this plan so that those seven acres of right-of-way underneath the streets, which Dennis is building, can be counted for exaction fee purposes on there. So that's why they were shown on this. in addition to the 22 acres which is on this lot which will be subject to exaction fees. I do want to emphasize, too, that this plan does not show Providence Place Parkway extending over to Russell Cave Road. So this plan does not allow that construction to be built at this time. I do want to emphasize to you, though, that every comprehensive plan in the last 20 years, since 1996, has shown the parkway to connect eventually at some point. We don't know when that is. It's still years off, but it'll connect Newtown Pike with Russell Cave Road. And the developer, the owner of the property under ordinance, is required to build that roadway. It's not something we have a choice about. We're required to build that roadway, which I think most of us agree is good for connectivity of streets here on this. But that is part of the comprehensive plan. It's part of the ordinance that that road be built. And every lot out here is paying considerable exaction fees to pay for the fund that will build that road. So I just wanted to emphasize those. I know you all know that, but sometimes it's good to go over the background on that. I think we do comply. We agree with the staff recommendations on this. We've submitted a revised plan from the subdivision committee last week to meet, we think, most of the staff recommendations on this. So with that, we'd ask your approval of this, and we agree with the staff conditions and just reserve the right to respond to any new issues that might come up. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Murphy at this point? Nope. Mr. Gross, anything to add? No, sir. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak on this? Yes, please come forward. I couldn't see. I didn't know. We need you at the microphone or take a microphone with you, one of the two. And your name. My name is Bill Woodward, and I was trying to understand exactly where the placement of this unit is going to be in comparison to Russell Cave Road. In simple terms, it is about halfway between Newtown Pike and Russell Cave Road, bordering the interstate. You can see the interstate. Russell Cave Road, yes. Russell Cave would be to your right. And it's about halfway between Newtown and Russell Cave. Okay, that explains quite a bit. So it is going to be quite noticeable. It's a pretty big size. Okay, very good. That helps a lot. Thanks. Thank you, sir. And I do have a couple of concerns. And Mr. Martin did a great job earlier of explaining to me what's kind of in the future here. and I do, I think, are we putting the cart before the horse here? We don't have a plan where the road's going to come in to Russell Cave. And now we've got a building here, but where's this road going to go? Because there's sinkholes all over this place. And there's one that's about probably less than 20 to 30 yards from Russell Cave, very close to where I live, where the old Kingston Farm was, I'm really concerned about we've got this nice office building going in. We don't even know where the road's going to go. Well, in the grand scheme of things, one, with the zone change, the roadway has been laid out. It may be subject to slight changes, but it has been laid out. This access will be coming from strictly Newtown Pike. And entering where on Russell Cave? Pardon me? It won't at the present time. At the present time? At the present time. Down the road, you'll see future development plans that will show where that will happen. But we don't know where that is right now. It should be. We can get Mr. Murphy to respond. It's almost directly across from Faulkner, yes. Right across from Faulkner. Yes. Okay. That's where I live, and there's two farms on the other side. And any sort of possible sinkhole situations will definitely be addressed at that time. Well, they said that once before, and they stopped development because of that reason. Okay. That's all good. I think the intersection to Russell Cave is a huge, huge mistake right that close to I-75. I just want to, I'm just voicing my opinion. Obviously, I can't do anything about it. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time, too. Let's see. Travel. And I am very concerned about the traffic concerns, which will affect the whole area of our neighborhood and the Kingston neighborhood. Already, Swaggart has tons of equine traffic going from the two training centers onto Swaggart, which is a 25-mile-an-hour speed limit. Is that going to change? What kind of effect are we looking at that? in the future with the road. Now, I know this is not concerning the road yet, but what I'm seeing is with this development, we can just pretty much say. You know, I would be fairly safe in saying at some future point, as Mr. Martin mentioned, Providence Place Parkway will go all the way to Russell Cave. This is something that's been in the works for, maybe Mr. Murphy said that, but this is something that has been in the works for several years. And it is going to happen. And we will be addressing traffic concerns throughout that process. And I'm sure we'll be hearing more about traffic concerns as that occurs. Sure, and I understand that. and the flooding, literally, on Russell Cave Road, because I don't know if you've seen the pictures or not. I live in the neighborhood. I'd like to know what are the plans, even with this property. I understand the pump station. There's great watershed there for the current pump station, but with the sink hose and everything else, there's a huge water issue that goes across Russell Cave. there we we have seen i have seen all of that and heard concerns and yes various development plans over the years have gone away because of those sinkholes and anything today anything down the road those sinkholes will be addressed and i guess you know in the overall uh scheme just the complexion of the, I've seen your guys, I've seen the development that's happened around Lexington. Some of it, not so bad. Some of it, really bad. The complexion of this area, so close to the horse park, so close to wonderful places, it worries me and very much concerns me that we have office buildings going in. we're going to look like Anita Madden Park now. And it really does worry me that this is one of the final frontiers of Lexington that we're going to change dramatically. I can appreciate your concern. Once again, that decision was made a long time ago. Slowly, it will happen. I hate to tell you that, but slowly it will happen. I understand. Maybe you can do it a little differently than you do it everywhere else. We're here and make it the best that we can. If you look at that, we've got 20-some-odd acres, and what would that be? Not even one acre under roof, probably. There's a lot of open space there. And there are requirements throughout the whole development. uh the is this plant available that i can get online you find uh yes sir okay i'd like to know how to do that if you could please uh someone from staff or mr sally will be able to tell you to help thank you thank you i really appreciate your time yes very much others oh yes one second yes sir yes sir i grew up on kingston farm in fact we owned it oh really there's only one sinkhole on that farm, and that was created mainly because of the interstate. On the Kingston side? On the Kingston side. You're referring to the Scott farm across the road. It had several. The drainage on that particular farm will handle it with retention basis because that farm is a whole lot different than what's across the road. Most of the car's photograph that you're talking about is over on the other side of the road, and that's why when it floods, it's the only place I've ever seen that water comes out on top of a hill across the road. I mean, there's a sinkhole there that water comes out of. There's one right across the fence, right? Yeah, a very large one. My point to you is that this 200 acres, which is what this is, and this is 29 acres of the 200 acres, is not going to cause a flooding issue for you because what's with the interstate and what's with back this way, they'll be able to manage that now if you were talking about what's on the other side of the road you have you have some serious issues but what's on this side of the road it's not going to increase your flooding okay because we lost a spring right there in that corner when they put it through there and before that happened there was no drainage issues okay i just know there's one very very large uh sinkhole they they won't even plant tobacco or drive a tractor over it Well, that's the reason. That was the spring that they cut off and made swampland go back down from it. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. My name is Catherine Perkins, and I'm secretary of Joyland Neighborhood Association. And I was asked to come just so I can let Joyland know what's going on. and we cannot always get out to these meetings to find out. So for me, I assume that this is now, if you approve this, this becomes a final plan that is subject to these stipulations that are on your agenda, or have they fulfilled these stipulations and it becomes a done deal? That would be my question for you now, where we're at on this. I believe this is a final development plan. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. With that, any of these conditions have to be met before this plan gets certified, before they can do anything else. Okay, and so these conditions haven't been met as of this point at this meeting, is that correct? Some of them may not have been, but before this plan is certified and anything else can be done, it has to be met. And I guess, do we have already someone who is going to utilize this building that is going to be built, a 102,000 square foot building? I would presume so. Otherwise, I don't think it would be built. But we do have a representative from the cellar, I believe, here today. I mean, a representative from the buyer here today, if I understood Mr. Murphy correctly. Does Joyland get to the other neighboring subdivisions on the other side of the interstate? Where do we find out the information, who our neighbor will be? Any interesting sharing now? unfortunately we are under contractual requirement of not disclosing any names at this time as you all know that's a typical typical item in economic development things like this but we're we are prohibited from saying that and i apologize but we we are prohibited What about nature of the business that would be utilizing this building? Is that something you're prohibited from? It's an office type. Just office building. And we have lots of those in Lexington, don't we? Looks like we've got another one coming. Okay. Okay. And with all this paved area and building, that won't affect flooding on the interstate at all? That is something with each development plan. There's engineers for the city that have to sign off on each one of them to take care of any possible stormwater situation. Okay. I'd hate to see the interstate suffer like some of the other roads on the north side that now suffer since they've been widened and developed. But I guess the other concern that Joyland or the rest of my board would like to know is, again, we're like Bill Woodward. We're afraid of traffic. We already have traffic issues. The interstate shuts down or someone doesn't want to get on at Newtown because there's an accident between Newtown and Paris Pike. They're going to be coming through Swigert Avenue, through Parkside, through Kingston to access, and we would really prefer not to be a throughway. we have been unable to stop that from happening now we can understand that concern and as I mentioned with Mr. Woodward I'm sure we'll hear these traffic concerns several times as this land develops however once again this land has been scheduled for this type of development for 20 plus years. That part I understand. And it's going to happen. We just, I guess, we figure if we don't show up and get more information, and we also don't voice our concerns, that if we're not a squeaky wheel, that you won't hear us. Thank you, ma'am. And the other thing I ask is the house on the farm is, I know But it's a very old house. I moved here in 1984 and went to that house with a gentleman I was living with to visit, Mrs. Penn Neely. And I know it's a beautiful old house. I don't know how much of a disrepair it is in. Where is this in a relationship to the house, and is the house going to be torn down? In all honesty, this is unrelated to the house. It is, you know, I don't know. It's probably 1,000 feet or better. I don't know what the distance is, maybe more than that from the house. You know where the house is. So it would be between the house and Newtown. Go halfway down the interstate to Newtown Pike, and that's where this is going to be. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I know your day is long. Sorry to bother you. Thank you. Yes, sir, one more thing. Please come to the microphone. One more thing. Talking about the traffic issues, I'm sure there's been studies and studies and studies. How can I get that information? I'd like to see that information. I'd like to understand what the impact is actually going to be to my road and the other roads in the neighborhood. on this one development. I'm sure, Mr. Martin, can you help me there? He can get you in the right direction. Okay. I guess that's the biggest thing. And I'd like to be able to view the plat, too. They can definitely do that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, Mr. Murphy, anything? No. Commission, any questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for a motion. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I move approval for DP 2016-67 Kingston Hall Unit 1 Lot 22 with all the provisions and conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2016. 67, seconded by Mr. Smith. I would presume that's noting the AMP compliance. Okay. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Moving on, I believe we have one more plan. It's on the page 8. In the middle of the page, DP 95-80, this is a reapproval. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this is Plan DP95-80. And if you take a look at the parentheses, you're seeing the future. PLN Plan-MajorDevelopmentPlan-16, that's 2016, and the number. That's our newest CELA system. That's what you're going to see, folks. This is North Parkway Acres. Excuse me. It's located on Parris Pike. Here's Judy Lane. Here's Parkside. This is where old limestone comes up and intersects here. The curb is located right in here and the transmission shop. Of course, the interstate is in that direction. Here's the Waffle House. This was the last amendment to this plan in 95. This plan is back in before you today for reapproval because the owner has been requested if the site can be used for dirt storage from a public improvement project, a street project. And as you all are aware, that requires a land disturbance permit. We've heard some talks about that already today. And in order to get that permit, the plan has to be approved and active. and so they brought it back to you for re-approval and speaking of sinkholes those of you who know the area know that this area right in here this is a sinkhole very big very significant sinkhole will probably inhibit much of the development of this property frankly with that you can see that staff is recommending approval subject to a couple of standard re-approval conditions division of water qualities approval not that they're building anything but you know we require that now and then of course a second certification to show that it has been re-approved on this date and with that again we are just we're recommending re-approval of this plan be happy to answer any questions you may have sorry any questions for mr martin Nope. Thank you. Applicant, anything to add? I'm Steve Baker with Midwest Engineering, working on behalf of the owner. I just wanted to say we concur and appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Commission members have any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. The lone cowgirl here. Anyway, Mr. Chair, I move for approval of DP95-80 with all the nuances there, North Park Acres, with the six conditions as outlined by staff, re-approval. Motion made and seconded by Ms. Plumlee for re-approval of all those nuances, North Parkway Acres. please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you very much. If it's all right with the commission, I'm going to take an item out of order. We'll move on to commission items and handle the initiation of a text amendment for increased uses in the ED zone. Or as they left, they would have learned something. She wanted to talk to her. She loves to talk. Yeah. She loves to talk. That's her heart. Come on, butterfingers. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. of your agenda. Item C, text amendment for increased uses in the ED zone. It's probably very fitting that the last development plan we talked about was one of the largest we've seen in an ED zone in some time. This is an item that we discussed at your work session two weeks ago, and what we've passed out to you today are revisions to the draft that we shared with you at your work session based on your comments. We've attempted to incorporate all of your review comments from your work session two weeks ago into this draft, and this is what we will notify folks about should you decide to initiate this today. It was discussed that this initiation would be required in order to go ahead and schedule the requisite public hearing on this proposal. And as we noted on the agenda, this proposal comes from about a year's worth of work with various committee meetings talking about necessary changes or desired changes, if you will, to the ED zone. That process has not involved our normal notification to area neighborhoods, and of course that will be one of the biggest steps between now and the time that you may consider this either at your zoning committee meeting or at a public hearing. Also, as a result of the discussions at your work session, we have provided you a copy of KRS 241.01, about wineries. It was known that there would be a change to the definition for wineries. If you look at the very last page of this particular handout that does have the highlighting on it, you will see the definition of winery. There was some concern that perhaps the wording that is in the draft text might need some review based on these proposed changes which go into effect tomorrow. After looking at this, the staff does not believe that that's the case. But certainly we did want to provide this to you just to show you that Ms. Wade did go online, look at this information. She also is the drafter of this tax amendment and has done this work in the last couple of weeks since your meeting. We would ask you at this time to consider the formal initiation of this tax amendment. And as I've said, the staff will get busy on the requisite notice that's required, and we will move to presenting this to you with a full staff report at your zoning committee upcoming if you decide to do that. Thank you. Questions? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I went home and re-reviewed. And one thing that's just really causing me some heartburn is that on the first page, number 14 and 15, nursing homes and assisted living facilities, and then number 15, office warehouse misuse projects as further regulated. My concern is we're going to have a nursing home. We could have a big steel building next door, and it could be a foundry clanging and banging all night long. I mean, I know that's a little bit of a swing to the far side, but we could have a manufacturer right next door to a nursing home. You could in the ED zone. Yes, that is a possibility. That is a possibility. Okay. That gives me a little bit of heartburn because I know probably I'm going to end up in that nursing home. You won't be able to hear it. That's right. I probably won't be able to hear it. Of course, today, neither nursing homes and assisted living facilities, neither one, are permitted in the zone today. So, yes, I do understand. Thank you. Other questions? Yes. We're ready. I think we're ready. Yes. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for initiation of Article 23A-10, revisions to the ED zone categories and restrictions. The motion has been made for the initiation and it's seconded by Mr. William Wilson. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Now we'll move back to the rest of the Commission items for the election of officers. We have had a nominating committee. They have met. We went through the process. We offered discussion at a work session. this is the time to elect officers and I would ask for Ms. Plumlee I believe to provide us with information that the committee is ready to present. Thank you. The committee's recommendation is as follows. Chairperson would be Bill Wilson. The vice chairperson would be Frank Penn. Secretary Carolyn Plumlee. Parliamentarian Karen Monday. So moved. So we have a motion. I'd say we need a second. We're going to open it for any discussion. The motion's been made and seconded by Mrs. Richardson. Any discussion? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move the nomination cease. Thank you. I would say. And accept the report by acclamation. Okay. We've got now two motions on the floor. Mr. Perlman-Terian. You don't need two. It's the same motion. The same motion. Okay. That's the case. It's modification. So the second one is modification. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So the motion is for the acceptance from the nominating committee's report as shown on the agenda and reported out by Mrs. Plumlee. So we do have a motion and a second for that slight. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. One other thing, delegation of secretarial duties. Would you like to make a motion? Thank you. I move that the secretary's duty, except for signing minutes, is to be delegated by the director of the Division of Planning and the staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the delegation of the Secretary's duties to be delegated by the Division of Planning and his staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Staff items. Oh, maybe I need to turn this over to Mr. Wilson. Staff items. Mr. Chair, just to remind you, your next meeting is in two weeks, July the 28th. There is no meeting next week, no work session, so we'll see you all in two weeks. Okay, thank you. Audience items, doesn't look like we have any, so. Yes, sir? Well, first of all, I thank you for the election, but I would like to say, Mike, on behalf of all of us, that you've done a superb job, and we'd like to thank you for that. I mean, I've watched you process through these meetings, and I've always been impressed with the style and the grace. More importantly or equally as important, the respect that you give the people who come here and who present their positions. And also with the patience that you also afford to all of us as we sit here and give our chairman the ropes on occasion. But, Mike, thank you very, very much for your leadership and for your indomitable courage, for your keen insight, and above all, for your perseverance. I would like the Commission to please join me in thanking Mike for your participation. Also, I say that when I was approached about the possibility of being considered for this position, my wife asked me why would I want to do that, and I told her that probably I was the only one on the committee that was off his medication at the time. But in any event, I'm looking forward to the challenge, but I think it's comforting to know that we've got, I think, three or four. Ms. Richardson has been chair. Mr. Craven's been chair. Mr. Penn's been chair. Of course, now Mike's here, and with all this power and institutional history and knowledge, I think we'll be able to fully move forward. So I don't have any problems with that at all. Also, I'd like to say I'm looking forward to working with the staff in this new capacity, and I thank all the, I call you all the stars because you get to be seen on television, but thank you all also in the back for the support that you provided, and for those people who are not here who provide you all backup and support, I'd like to thank them as well. So with that, we don't meet next week, so I get a week off already? You get a week off already. I love that. Let me say thanks to everyone. You know, it's been interesting. It's been challenging at times. It's been fun at times, but I wouldn't have gotten through it without everyone that's sitting behind this bench here. And I appreciate the support and what they've done very much. And that includes the staff and, as Mr. Wilson said, everyone in the back. And, you know, I've always said that we do have 11 free independent thinkers up here that can decipher back from the BS. And I think we've done a very good job. And I've always done what's best for the city of Lexington. So thank you. Do we motion to adjourn? Yeah, just a couple of interesting pieces here for the parliamentary, since I'm leaving my position. No, no. We're bouncing back and forth. And what have you. You know, you really don't need a motion for adjournment. The chair can say, without objection, the meeting is adjourned. And if there's objection, then without objection, the meeting is adjourned.