I'm not sure where you came from, but I think my lucky star's above. That I got the chance to have a dance, but one dance just ain't enough. I think I'm falling in love I'm holding heaven in my arms tonight Everything about you is so perfectly right I've never been there but I think I might Be holding heaven in my arms tonight I'm holding heaven in my arms tonight Everything about you is so perfectly right I've never been there but I think I might Be holding heaven in my arms tonight I'm holding heaven in my arms tonight Every breath you take And every move you make Every bond you break Every step you take I'll be watching you Every single day Every word you say Every game you play Every night you stay, I'll be watching you Oh, can't you see You belong to me I'm a poor heart, it aches Every step you take Every move you make Every vow you break Every smile you fake, every claim you speak, I'll be watching you. Since you've gone, I've been lost with your trace. I dream and I can only see your face. I look around, but it's you I can't replace. I feel so cold and I long for your embrace. I keep crying, baby, baby, please. you Thank you. All right, go right ahead, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. I'm, I guess, Bruce Nickel. I'm the fourth on the list to call when no one's around to run the meeting. So welcome. This is the agenda for the Urban County Planning Commission subdivision and zoning items. March 10th, this is our call to order. We are still meeting via teleconference due to the COVID-19 state of emergency. This meeting is being held via live video teleconference pursuant to 2021 Senate Bill 25 and in accordance with KRS 61-826. All right. Well, we'll start with item number two on the agenda, which is the approval of the set of minutes that was distributed by the staff. Anyone like to make a comment or a motion for approval of the set of minutes that have been distributed? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the January 13th, 2022 minutes. All right. We've got an approval. A motion by Jan and a second by Ms. Work. and we will vote now. All right. Approved by all. It's going to take me a little bit to figure this screen out, so bear with me. All right. Mr. Bell is frozen. Okay, we got us. All right. Either that or he's very in favor. He's down with it. Okay, good. Now, Mrs. Wade, do we have any postponements and or withdrawals? I do believe we have some members of the public who wish to request postponements or withdraws today. If you can, raise your hand in the attendees section and let us know that you're interested in asking for one of those two things. I believe we have Mr. Tony Barrett first. um donna can you bring me okay mr barrett are you available all right there we are mr barrett hello uh i lost my uh my page let me find it again it's on uh It's on page four. Yes, page four. Item F. It's the PLNMJDP 22009. Ruttenberg and Cohen property. I'd like to ask for one month postponement. Okay. Do we need to identify the date of the postponement or can we just say one month postponement? Yes. The next subdivision meeting will be held on April of 14th. All right. Now this is an opportunity for anyone who is meeting via Zoom to request to... No, we don't... Do we say anything about this or do we have our staff recommend? You can ask if there's anyone present that had planned to speak about this case today. Deal. And I'll just carry that through. Sure. anyone that is an attendee or a panelist who would like to make a comment on this, please raise your hand. Anyone who is an attendant. Okay. Well, then we are ready for a motion for postponement. Mr. Chair? Yes. I'll move to postpone PLN and DP 2209 Rettenberg and Cohen for one month to the April 14th hearing. We have a second by Ms. Purcell. We'll go ahead and vote on that. Everyone raise your hand. If you could keep your hand up for a minute so that Ms. Cummings can record that. Looks like all in favor. Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett. We'll see you on the 14th. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Do you have any other attendees who would like to postpone? We do. We have Mr. Richard Murphy also raised 15 in attendance. All right. There's Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy. Hello, Mr. Chairman. On page three, item C, PLN, MJDB 2173, Kingston Hall, unit one lot 10 and kingston hall unit two lots 14 through 18 i represent the developer of the property we're requesting a one month postponement they are preparing a revised development plan which is still in the works and hopefully will be presented to you next month all right thank you very much do we have any attendees or panelists who would like to raise their hand does not look like they are all right we are now available for a motion all right mr nickler yeah i would move for a uh one month postponement of pln MJDP 21-73 Kingston Hall for a one-month postponement to March. What was the March date on that, Tracy? April 14th. Sorry, April 14th, the next subdivision hearing. Perfect. Thank you. We've got a second from Mr. Namobalon. Now we'll vote. Raise your hand. There we are. We're good. Mr. Bell's good. All right. Thank you all. We'll see you on the 14th, Mr. Murphy. I believe we've got another postponement. Yes. Mr. Zach Cato has also raised his hand to be recognized. All right. Mr. Cato. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. This will be on page five under zoning items, the bottom of the page. Number one, PLN MAR 21-20, Calgill. After further continued discussion from last month and meeting with staff and extensive meetings internally, the applicant has decided that with the proposed conditions and the parking requirement that this is not going to be a project that's feasible for them at this time so they're continuing to evaluate their options but as far as this application goes the applicant is requesting to withdraw so we would ask for a motion to permit us to withdraw this and to remove it from the agenda. All right. Any of the panelists or attendees would like to make a comment or raise their hand? Please do so now. No one has raised their hand. We are ready for a motion for withdrawal. All right, Mr. Mickler, thank you. All right. The, I was just scrolling to the page. Apologies, I lost on my computer screen which plan number that was. Which page was that on? We're looking at page two. Okay. It's item B. P-L-N-M-J-D-P-20. Page five. Oh, gosh. I was getting ahead of it. Bottom of page five. Okay. Be it now, Calgill. Okay. I would motion to allow for withdrawal of Calgill Incorporated Zone Development Plan PLN MAR21-20 Calgill Inc. and make a motion to withdraw. All right, we have a second from Mrs. Worth. We'll go ahead and vote for withdrawal of PLNMR 21-00020. All in favor, please raise your hand. It's like unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Cato. Thank you very much. See you again. We don't have anyone else that's raised their hand, but I think Mr. Martin does have a... Yes. Mr. Martin has an additional, looks like a withdrawal for us on page two. It'll be a postponement. Okay. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission under item B on page two. This is major development plan 21-67, Newtown Springs, unit 1, lot 2. The applicant, Banks Engineering, has contacted staff. They are continuing to work on their issues, particularly the canopy design and some other issues that we've been discussing with them on that plan. And they requested a one-month postponement to the April 14th. All right. Thank you very much. We would like to speak to the attendees for the panelists. we do have a hand raised in the attendees but i think that's held over from the previous um i believe that's for the next okay it's for the next one very good we're ready for a motion mr chair i move to postpone plm njdp 2167 newtown springs until april 14th all right we've got a second mrs meyer let's go ahead and vote on this item show of hands unanimous or postponement thank you very much and then the individual that had raised their hands um in the attendee section chad graver are you available it's the consent well we're still on postponement so mr graver are you available to share your screen are you wishing to postpone today Mr. Graber, can you hear me? I think what we're looking at is Mr. Graber, who is the project contact for the Bluegrass Stockyards. All right. Let's allow him the opportunity to unmute. I do know that there's another item on the consent agenda. We will start with that. Mrs. Wade, do we have... Sure. If there's no one else here for postponements or withdrawals, we can move on to what we call the no discussion agenda, or for short, the consent agenda. Oh, Mr. Graber, were you here for a postponed item? Wrong timing. We're looking to be removed from the consent agenda. Oh, okay. Fantastic. That's exactly what we needed to hear. Excellent. So we do the consent agenda that was published does have two items listed. And then what we do is just ask if there's anyone present in the audience or the representative for the applicant or from the planning commission that wishes to have an item removed from the consent agenda for a full presentation. So, since Mr. Graber indicated that the Bluegrass Stockyards LLC site development plan wishes to have that plan removed from the consent agenda, that just leaves one item for the Planning Commission's consideration. Let's see if anyone's present for that today. It is on page 2, item A, PLN MJDP 21-50 for Ramsey Sullivan property, lot 4. This is an amended final development plan. And I thought I saw Darby had his hand up. Located at 2671 Kearney Ridge Boulevard in Lexington, Council District 12. and this is again an amended final development plan. Mr. Turner. He didn't have his hand. Just calling on people with their hands up. Let's see. Mr. Turner. Yes. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm sorry, Tracy. Are you wishing to have this item removed from the consent agenda? No. No. Okay. Well, if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to have this heard or any of the planning commission members who wish to have this heard, now would be the opportunity to have that removed. And if there's no one, then that one item can be taken without a presentation, just with the staff's recommendation. All right. So we will, let's go to the, let's do the page two item A. We're going to start there with the PLNM JDP 21-00050 Ramsey Sullivan property lot 4, amended development plan 310-22, located at 267-131. We are available for questions, comments, or a motion to approve with the findings permitted by the staff. And I cannot make a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for the PLNMJP21-50, the grant of Sullivan property be put on the consent agenda and approved on the consent agenda. Okay. It's our one item on the consent agenda. So this is for approval of PLNMJD 21.0050. And that's a second from Mrs. Barksdale. If we would like to vote, let's go ahead and do that now. Please vote. That is approved unanimously. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. Yes, so then we'll just carry on with the agenda. Good luck. And we'll carry on with the rest of the agenda. Now, I might have lost my place. Tracy, where are we now? We are on page three. Okay. Where's the bottom, item D. Yellen and JGP 22-3, the Bluegrass. Welcome, Mr. Martin. Mike. And we'll hear this. So once again, we're on agenda page three, item D, the stockyards. We've got Mr. Graber available. We're good to go. Okay. All right. Let's see. Share screen. Oh, right. I handled the technology part pretty smoothly there, I think. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, this is Major Development Plan 22-0003, the Bluegrass Stockyards, also known as the All Avenue Operations Center. this is a final development plan being proposed for a kentucky utilities operational center located on the old stockyard site which is out on south forbes road in this location and then the lyle road here and of course as it turns and heads back down towards uh east town road or main street west main street in that direction of course this is the access into our sanitary sewer treatment plant and some other government facilities at this location. They are proposing to build a building, as you can see here, of over 72,000 square feet for offices. As they said, they're operation facilities. They are including a medical facility for their employees at this time. and in conjunction with that you can see access off of Lyle into this location. In this area they have a lot of storage of equipment, transformers, and that sort of thing. They have 164 parking spaces as you can see they're showing in this area. Now the plan that you see before you the color up is informational purposes only. But so you'll know, discussions on this plan have been kind of ongoing ever since technical, including this morning. And there was an extensive discussion with staff this morning about some of the issues and concerns on this plan that KU has in wanting to work things out with your staff. so what you see before here before you shows an access point coming off a while in this location parking here the original plan that was presented to your subdivision committee did not have this access they had access on the south forbes road and those of you that are on committee may know that if you look at your agenda you'll see that item 17 says remove driveway access to South Forbes Road. That was discussed at considerable length at the subdivision committee. They did approve the plan subject to those conditions. So this color rendering does reflect the removal of that access point and then a relocation here of parking down in this area and some additional parking, again, with access to Lyle at this location. Here we have the old historic McConnell House. That was discussed at considerable length at the sub-municipity as well. KU intends to preserve it, maintain it, see that it doesn't deteriorate, but at this time they have no use proposed for the property, nor is staff aware of any public or non-profit or any other entity that's currently interested in trying to utilize the old McConnell House. I'll editorialize and say that we certainly hope that some use can be found for that property. That is an extremely important historic structure in the history of our community. Now, the issue that KU wishes to discuss is one of the items on your agenda. And we have our standard sign-offs. And we have a couple of little cleanup items on the agenda. Primarily, their concern has been the extent of the street improvements along the right-of-way on Lyle and on Forbes Road. The plan does currently show improvements along Forbes Road, a sidewalk that would be placed in an easement adjacent to the right-of-way, and also curb and gutter. And again, as you all are aware, our street system isn't just for vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic, but also is an important component in our storm waters. management. That's why we have curbing gutters. So we have discussed that and they were just concerned again about understanding the extent of the improvements along this frontage. The previous plan you may recall, those of you that are on the commission, had a large residential development proposed on this site. And because of that, they had agreed at that time, that developer to very extensive improvements along the frontage. These improvements being proposed are not as extensive as those previously approved improvements. Now, there's a water tank in this location. That water tank has to be monitored and maintained, and that's the purpose of this little access here. The water tank is part of their fire suppression system. This will be a sprinkled facility. Another aspect that's new to this plan is that they are proposing that the medical facility and its associated parking be part of a phase two. And that's on their end. They've had some changing situations on their end on this plan and on other circumstances, including their current employee medical facility. They're comfortable with maintaining that. So they just the recommendation was get this square footage approved, get this plan approved. They can build the operations center as phase one and build the medical facility as phase two within the five years life of a development plan. Should they not, they can always come back to this body and seek reapproval for that additional square footage for that medical facility along with the additional parking. of very large concern KU has expressed to staff is the south Forbes Road improvements. Most of that discussion is actually centered on a pedestrian facility along Forbes Road. Forbes Road is a secondary route for our trail system. staff over the years has sought some improvements in the area, including sidewalks with mixed results. As you know, there's a railroad crossing right here, and then slightly to the south, we have our trail connection. So again, part of staff's concern was to have a pedestrian facility that would help bring pedestrians down to that trail system. Again, KU has some concerns about the extent of those improvements. They have raised some concerns about their ability to do this sort of work in the right-of-way. That's a legal issue, but again, they have a concern about that that they wanted to discuss with you today. That's why it's been pulled off the consent agenda. we uh staff again would add that the plan was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee again with the frontage improvements being a resolve issue planning staff did have a discussion with traffic engineering uh today again this is this all started happening this morning. Again, I want to remind you of that. And traffic seems comfortable with the ability to resolve these issues with the average. So that's good to hear. It's good to know. If it can't be resolved, then we will be back before you to have it resolved. So with that, I'll be happy answering questions you may have for staff. One question about the location of the trail on the South Forbes. Is it on the same side of the street as the Macon House or is it on the opposite side? The trail is down here, but the secondary trail would come. On the same side as the Macon House? Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Same side as the Macon House. All right. Do we have any more questions from our committee? for Mr. Martin. Does not look like it. We're now ready to hear from the applicant. And Mr. Graber is already in, but Donna, could you also bring in Mr. Grubbs from KU? He's in the attendee section. Thank you. Go ahead, John. No, no, thank you. All right, Mr. There you are. You're ready to go. Actually, I'm going to defer to Eli because Eli can give you a lot better understanding of where KU stands as far as on the sidewalks and some of the other items. So, Eli, take it away, buddy. Thank you. And I'm trying to get my video to work. Apologies if it doesn't. so our main concern with installing sidewalks pedestrian facilities along South Forbes Road is that we do not own the land and making capital improvements on other people's property is not something that we tend to do if we don't have ownership or easement throughout and so that is really our primary concern. You know, we have heard, you know, planning's concerns about the other sidewalks along Lyle and the property that we own across the street. And, you know, we understand the safety concerns and understand the long-term goals of providing pedestrian facilities for people so that they're not walking on the streets, et cetera. And we share those, you know, we share safety first is our culture and so we recognize that and we do not wish to contest any sidewalks on our properties just the only sidewalks that we would like to contest are the ones that we've been asked to install along south forums I would like yeah Mr. Martin please walk us through this Right. And again, Lowell Road will have a pedestrian facility in an east on their property adjacent to the right of way, which you have heard they understand that concern and that need. The sidewalk on South Forbes, they've expressed, as I said, a legal concern about their ability to work in the right of way. We didn't enter into any big legal discussion with them on how that might work. They are a PSC-regulated entity, so they do have certain parameters that they're allowed to operate under. You may be aware that our schools don't do any kind of public improvements and right-of-way improvements as well. The one aspect of the discussion that we had with traffic engineering, and I believe Jeff Neal is here today, Steve Parker couldn't make it, was a willingness to discuss the possibility of an in-lieu payment that would then allow us to address the facility and the timing of the trail. I was interested in that myself. They have done this. We don't have a specific in-lieu of program necessarily. We do allow payments into traffic calming. We have an account. it's my understanding what they do with in lieu of money is they target it to a specific project so in this case if we could resolve this issue with them and KU might be was willing to make an in lieu of payment then that could be tied to the uh trail construction uh they use uh they use this money I was told as match money when they get grants to build these types of facilities So that would not necessarily, again, address our immediate concerns about pedestrian safety along forbs and, again, with our major trail down here. But that is one potential solution in working with KU and trying to deal with their concerns along this particular frontage. And I will add that staff, again, we're not disputing their point of view, but in terms of legality and what they're allowed and not allowed to do, our legal department hasn't had a chance. This is the first they've heard of it, so they haven't had a chance to weigh in on that. So, again, I think the question before us today and before this body is whether or not we're comfortable with our ability to resolve this particular issue. All right. Mr. Martin, which item are we looking at to resolve? 16. Okay. Resolve is 16. Resolve, as you know, road infrastructure improvements as shown, healing and giving you the 18-0-0-0-9-9. I'm looking at Mr. Grubbs. Are you satisfied with item 16 to remain as resolved? uh so i guess you need to explain to me what i would be agreeing to there because if if we say that it's resolved my understanding is that we would be agreeing to place a sidewalk along south forbes and that is not what we're doing just real quick what i'm getting at from the planning commission side is that you're going to have a hard time working with us to submit to approve a plan without a solution on um the sidewalk and the infrastructure which is a big part of what what we're trying to do. So you would resolve would be you all work it out. We could go ahead and make a judgment on this. You all work it out. Once that's worked out, you have the ability to certify your plan. I guess what needs to be clarified though is does the planning commission think there needs to be a sidewalk on South Forbes or do you agree that the applicant they're asking not to build anything. Okay. That's a bigger question. They're asking to remove 16. We have 16. The staff is comfortable with 16. Not in its totality. Just along 4-track. That refers to improvements along Lyle and 4-track. The issue is... Along Lyle, we agree to install curb and gutter, sidewalk, et cetera. The only issue is with South Forbes where we do not physically own the property. And our property line does go up to Lyle Avenue. Can you explain, Tom, just that no one owns the right-of-way? Right. Well, the right-of-way, of course, is public right-of-way. Right. Right. No, the public owns it. KU doesn't own it. All of us own it in the sense that it's public right-of-way. But it doesn't have a fee simple ownership in the sense of property that KU is concerned with. I think KU is looking for some reassurance that there may be a compromise, a win-win situation that would not result in them building the sidewalk at this time. Correct. And so what we, yeah, that's what they're looking for. So that is kind of the question. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with some other solution as part of that resolution that we've had a discussion? And again, I can only report to you that traffic engineering was not adverse to that discussion. But that sign-off also requires the bike and pedestrian planner. Yes, it does. All that is incorporated in 16, is that correct? the South Forbes is incorporated in 16. Okay, and the reason I'm asking these specific questions is that this was supposed to be on the consent agenda, which means that everything is wrapped up by the applicant and staff to present to us with approval. It has been, was removed from consent agenda because of the concerns of item number 16. So I think we should have a discussion on how you all would like to address item 16. If that's correct, I'd like to let us open it up for our discussion. All right, we're open for discussion. You used a phrase, I didn't understand it, that they were not averse to something. I don't know what you meant by that, but I'm recalling in a subdivision meeting that there was a lot of concern about traffic volume along South Forks Road that is not safe right now. If we're talking about people from a pathway down on the lower right-hand corner screen trying to make their way across that property to some other part, are we saying we're leaving that unsidewalked for now? KU is saying they don't believe they have the legal ability to build that sidewalk. I know what they're saying, but I'm saying if they don't do it and we're not doing it, we're leaving it unsidewalked. At this time, yes. there is a trail plan but the timing of that is not it's down the road and just to make a comment to your comment i'm in agreement i would think that that needs to be completed period before this thing goes it needs to be shown how it's going to be completed before it goes forward and i would my thoughts would leave that up to staff and the applicant to resolve. If resolve would make sure that gets put in one way or the other. In my mind, that's where my head is. Yes, sir, Mr. Bell. Yeah, I hope you can hear me. The internet's not great where I am in Florida. So, Tom, if you would clarify, who owns this property then? Who owns this right of way down there? well the city does or the public right away is the government's on behalf of us all of us the people the citizens it's probably right away forms road okay so thus ku is not is not responsible then as far as you're concerned uh in their perspective Well, that's confusing to me. I'm sorry. What normally happens, how a developer improves the right way? Well, normally when we have a development, if necessary, there could be half street improvements along their frontages. Just like on Lyle, where we're going to get curb, gutter, and sidewalk, we would get curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the south floors. Now, sometimes that varies depending on the circumstances. Again, curb and gutter is installed because of drainage concerns and stormwater management. Sometimes that's not installed. Just the sidewalk would be installed. So in that regard, it depends. But in the normal scheme of development, we would get half improvements along their frontages. Process improvements. Gov butter and sidewalk would be normal. Is the city responsible then for this? Or what you're saying is, so then who is responsible? Ultimately, the city is responsible to build the trail. And that's down the road. and we don't down the road 10 years maybe longer so do you think it's something that if we if we decide to leave the resolve condition on there is it something that you feel that can be resolved between staff and ku until we sit down and have a discussion with all the parties involved it's not a guarantee okay so then if it's not resolvable does it come back to us to to vote on because it because it wasn't resolved it would yes sir okay thank you of course always reluctant to ask you to actually design a plane yeah we are reluctant to do that so we try to work these things out and and quite often the resolution is fairly straightforward this one's a little more problematic uh and again frankly based on this morning's conversation and KU's concerns. And we're not disputing their concerns, but we haven't had a chance to fully evaluate that legality aspect of it. Okay, thank you so much. Let's go, Mr. Graber, and then we're going to do Mr. Mickler after we hear him. I just want to throw one more thing out there, regardless of the legality part of things. the other thing that me and Eli spoke about was just we're going to be adding a sidewalk whether it's either along South Forbes or Lyle regardless but we're talking about South Forbes now and and literally this sidewalk goes nowhere there's not a sidewalk on any property from old Frank Pipe there's still none down there up to South Forbes all the way up to Lee's Town Road. There's not a sidewalk all along Lyle Avenue currently. We're literally going to be building something that goes nowhere. So I'm not arguing. I'm a component about sidewalks and I get that you got to start somewhere. But literally we're going to put a sidewalk and it's probably not going to line up with where you want to put your trail. It's not going to tie in right. I've been a civil engineer long enough to know that that's usually what happens when you're at these types of things. So I just want to remind you about that. And it makes more sense for me to address the sidewalk when the trail design comes through, especially along South Forbes, so you get a continuous path of where you want it at that time. Not knowing exactly what the traffic patterns are going to be 5, 10 years down the road. All right. Thank you. My only comment, not coming to that position I'm in, is that that can all be fixed at the resolve stage. And if we want to approve the plan with the infrastructure that needs to be put in at some point, it's got to be put in. If there's no private developer, it'd be done no matter what. I mean, they don't care if it's normally, no one cares if it's a sidewalk that goes to nowhere. So, I mean, you don't want to duplicate funds and spend money and waste money. No one wants to waste concrete or money or time or anything. But I think it could be resolved. But I don't see how we could give KU a I don't know. Any comments for everybody? Is it something that can be, again, as Mr. Graber said, we agreed to down the road once everybody kind of As more properties develop, as the trail kind of comes along, we agree to do it at that particular time. It just doesn't make sense currently to put it in. Is that something that, quote, is resolvable like that, Mr. Martin? I think when you go to resolve an issue, it implies a continuing discussion that we would need to have. So, Mr. Bill, typically if we put a timing restriction on something from the government's perspective, there has to be a trigger for when that would happen. So, usually it's a permit or occupancy of a building. So, you could tie it to the metal facility. Would it be a trigger that the adjoining properties or a trigger that the trail is in process? things of that nature or not? It would generally be triggered by something because those infrastructure improvements are usually related to the activity on the site. So their redevelopment of this site is changing the land use and changing the activity, level of activity on the site. And so I'm just thinking out loud, perhaps once the medical clinic is requested for a permit at that time, because there is, again, more activity and more traffic from outside their normal employees on site, that you would then build a sidewalk. But it would be connected to something happening on their site, as opposed to outside their site. That becomes really difficult for us to turn around and tell an applicant, hey, Jim down the street did a development, now it's your turn to do a sidewalk. That doesn't typically... Even if they've agreed to do it ahead of time based on that assumption. Someone would even have to know that that trigger exists. Yeah, that's true. One thing that I'm thinking about, Mr. Bell, is that Mr. Martin said it during his presentation, there's a phase one and a phase two. So it seems like, how are you dividing up phase one and phase two? So there's a phase one and phase two. Is that based on permits or is that based on the development plan? What is that based on? Both. They designate a phase two on their plan. It means that they're going to build it later and they'll have to pull a permit to do so. So they can permit the main facility and then come back within a five-year period. That's how long the development plan's approved for. They could then come back, pull a permit on the medical facility, and that would be a trick. So you could technically do resolve before phase two, which gives them a significant portion of time to resolve. The construction of the sidewalk. No. Yes. Give them five years. Yes. Mr. Mickler. Sorry. I just want to clarify one thing. and then if I'm correct, sort of direct a question about what we're talking about here. Is the legal complication with the right-of-way, was the staff informed about that this morning? Is that a new information that was sort of added this morning? It is. But now I will add that the applicant's always been concerned about the extent of the improvements. And they've always had concern, particularly with Forbes Road. So I guess what's bothering me here is that we have the applicant who is expressing a legal restriction. and we don't have a legal opinion from the public service commission or can or from the city staff whether this is in fact correct and this information all was sort of started here on this day of the hearing when this recommendation has been in place since the subdivision committee and the staff report at that time. Am I correct with that sort of timeline? And I mean, I'm just frustrated that I don't also have additional information from a legal perspective other than the legal perspective of the applicant. And I would just add that I'm also fine leaving it with resolve, but I'm not okay at this point taking it off or putting it off into the future as a phase two item. Robin from the sub subvision committee there were still discussions about Forbes Road and how they were going to handle that so that was all open ended was that at that point was there a discussion that this would not be legally possible for them to control this sidewalk issue wasn't discussed at that time it was really about how they were going to what they were going to do on Forbes Road or not and such like that. There was still a lot of work to do between staff and the applicant at that time. Yeah, I guess this one never brought up. Yeah, I just wish we had sort of a broader legal perspective beyond the applicant, I guess, in order for me to feel comfortable taking that restriction of resolve off the consent agenda. I'm fine with it worded the way that it was on the consent agenda. If I can cut in, we have asked our legal team to confirm that. That's what we've been told in the past. But regardless of the legalities, we still have an issue with installing a sidewalk in a piece of property that we don't own using ratepayer money, capital dollars, to improve somebody else's property. And I guess... Oh, that's it. I'm sorry to interrupt. the comment yeah i'm sorry the the comment that is in a different you're getting into a different conversation if the conversation is about you all not having the ability legally to provide the infrastructure that's required on all development plans that we see i can understand is that b is being resolved if you are saying we aren't going to spend any money on right away property you got a different problem which one is it it's we are looking into the first one and my management has told me that we are not installing a sidewalk along south forbes all right yes ma'am i will say that this is 200 jobs at this location what i what i heard are uh leave the wording of resolve and assume that plan staff KU will get this worked out, leave the wording as resolve and plug in a trigger event like beginning of phase two or do what we sometimes do and say there's not enough clarity here and this needs to be postponed until we can get the legal information in here from various sides and work out the KU's not going to pay for or a yes you are issue. Is that where we are? From my position, that is a great yes analysis or synopsis. Does everyone agree with that? Do we have any questions on the committee side? Since we're going to now bring it back because it's closed. So just for the committee, do you all agree with or have any questions? I'd just like to comment that I agree with Judy's assessment and I'm not comfortable with proceeding any further. I'd like to postpone this issue. This case application. You would like to make a motion? That's something that we can do at this time. And Ms. Meyer, are you asking for additional information of a particular nature? Yes, I'd like to, yes, I would like to see if we can get some more information about related to commission number 16. So if there's a legal opinion from what Mr. Mickler mentioned, the PSC or our law department related to applicants in general, and I guess also KU and the PSC regulated utility making what they're considering off-site improvement in the public right of way, whether that is a something the planning commission can require or not is that the information you'd like yes that and i yes and along with some guidance from our legal staff as well excellent so are you ready for a motion yes ma'am okay i move that um we postpone uh pln Okay, so are we postponing it? Since we've had all this discussion, it's still a postponement? Yes, ma'am. Okay, all right. I just want to clarify that. Okay, so I move for postponement of PLN and JVP 22-3, Bluegrass Stockyards, for so that we can have further discussion about the issues we've just talked about. related to condition number 16. Thank you for clarifying 16. That's exactly right. Yes. Very good. April 14. April 14. And we have a second from Mrs. Worth and Mr. Well, Mrs. Worth. We have a second from Mrs. Worth and we're going to vote now. Let's all vote. and as soon as we see his hand, we'll be good. All right, there it is. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Graber. Thank you, Mr. Grubbs. All right, that leads us to... Now I'm lost. Where are we? We are headed on down page four, Mr. Chairman. All right, here we are on page four. It looks like Lexington Clinic, PLNM, JDP 22.00008. Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. This is a, oh, let's see. Am I sharing screen? I'm not yet. Here we go. All right. We are at the Lexington Clinic campus on South Broadway. Here we have South Broadway, Parkview Drive. Here is Gibson. As it comes in here, you can see the access that exists off of Gibson into the clinic, as well as access off the Parkway into the clinic. Now, this is the new facility. They just roughly finished construction on this facility. Here we have the surgery center in the rear. And, of course, you can see all the parking that exists and proposed in the interior of the project. They also have parking that is proposed here in this location as well up here adjacent to Gibson. Now, this plan amendment is for this building in this location right here. And it is in a B1 zone. The rest of the property is in a P1 zone. A little bit of overlap of some R1C in this area, but it's a P1 piece of property for the clinic, along with this B1 property, which they have leased for many, many years. Originally, a two-story building was approved on this plan, along with the new facility that has been constructed at that amendment. they've come back to you with a amended plan to propose a five-story building correct five four that's right four four-story building that exceeds the height limit in the b1 so this is a form-based code proposal so there's also a report for you today which Autumn is going to go over with you and to discuss their compliance with the form-based code. Now, it's our understanding that the increase in square footage relates to their desire to consolidate sports medicine, orthopedic activities, and all that on this particular campus. Now, I know as this body is well aware, there is a development plan you have approved that has not been certified for this area back here in the parking along the creek. The plan that you see for you before you today will not be certified until the issue with the floodplain, the vegetative buffer, and this area where the creek is located, and it's going to be removed from this location per that previous amended plan to an area generally here. As again, this body is aware, that plan is going to the floodplain appeals committee. That meeting has been scheduled for April 6th. So the process, they are proceeding through the process to address the issues associated with constructing this parking and dealing with the relocation of that creek. This plan is contingent upon that plan. So I just want to inform the committee. Oh, there we go. I don't know what happened. But so I don't want any confusion. I want the commission to understand that approval of this plan is still a condition exists that the previous plan will have to be certified, which means a previous plan will go through the Blood Plain Appeals Committee process. So, again, that's all proceeding in the correct procedural fashion. When this plan is ultimately approved and completed, we're looking at, I think, as I said, this is a four-story, 52,000-plus square foot building. It will bring the total square footage on the campus up to over 217,000 square feet with well over, not well over, but over 800 parking spaces on the site. So, again, it's a big part of Lexington Clinic's mission as a medical provider in our community. And with that, I will turn this over to Ms. Autumn Godreweiss, who's going to discuss the form-based code report with you. Thank you, Tom. And this was also going to be on the consent agenda, but we need to hear the finding that Autumn is now going to present us. All right, good afternoon. As Tom said, this applicant is seeking to utilize the special provisions in Article 8-16 that allow a form-based neighborhood business project. They are doing that in order to exceed the typical height allowance for a building in the B-1 zone. They plan to construct a four-story, 65-feet, six-inch tall medical office building here. You can see on the screen a rendering of the proposed structure. For the B-1 form-based plan, they have to submit a character and context study that addresses how the proposed development will fit in relative to the surrounding area to justify the loosening of restrictions that allow the form-based plan. In this case, the applicant focused their study on the height and massing of other structures in the area. They've cited six other taller buildings in the immediate vicinity along the corridor, and they also focused on the architectural features of the proposed structure, citing its relationship with other buildings in the area, specifically the other building on the Lexington Clinic property and some of the similarities and materiality. Staff found that the applicant's proposal makes a strong effort to address the intent of the form-based project in a V1 zone. The height of the building will allow for a medical office building that will complement the existing area and the neighborhoods nearby. The proposed architecture will be respectful of that area as well, again, since it does relate to the existing structure. However, we did find that the character and context study did not use for landscaping, which are factors that are involved in the assessment of a B1 form-based plan. So staff believes that the requested project could improve its compliance with the B1 form-based neighborhood project by providing additional details on the use of open space and on supplemental landscaping in the required context study. So we do make two findings, or recommendations, sorry. The applicant provide a revised study that includes the supplemental landscaping and open space concepts. And to provide a note on the final development plan, the DP shall comply with the area character and context study that you all have approved. So that concludes my comments on that. happy to answer any questions that you have about that contact study or the recommendations we've made. All right. Do we have any questions from our committee? I can't see anything. Hi, Ms. Bertha, can't see you. How are you doing? I'll stop my chair. We do have a question. So just to make sure to understand what you're saying here, we've got this list of 23 conditions. Are you proposing adding additional conditions to this list? I believe that is how we would handle it. Is that right, Tom? Yes, yes. Part of the report. There's two additional. We oftentimes use the language, I think you're going to say, you referenced the staff's findings that we just submitted. You can make a finding that it complies with the form-based code subject to the staff report and the conditions of it. Or something like that. How do you want to paraphrase it? That's above my pay grade. Do we have any more questions for our staff? I'm using it. Doesn't look like it. Would Mr. Carman like to? I'm sorry. A finding for the staff report. It will incorporate conditions. That's a reference to finding that the staff just presented in whatever motion we are going to make. I think that that'll get us there. I think that'll get us there. Yes, I'm getting a nod. So, Mr. Carmen, would you like to make any comments? You're on mute. You got it unmuted. Let's unmute yourself. Well, that's me. There you go, John. Hello. Sorry about that. I believe legal counsel for the applicant would like to make a brief introduction and then I'll be glad to follow up with one other validation of our agreement with the conditions. Mr. Rochelle. Thank you, John. I am the attorney for Lexington Clinic and John is our project engineer. We have with us today also Deb Gregg of Flagship Healthcare Partners, who is a project coordinator. We are in agreement with the staff's recommendation and would ask for your approval. uh we certainly will work with uh with the staff and autumn relative to the comments that they have they have made regarding the the additional open space and uh landscaping as a matter of fact i think we've already submitted autumn one change that she may consider so we've been asked for your approval uh we're available for any questions and as um tom pointed out we do need a specific finding that we are in conformance with Article 6, excuse me, Article 8, 1603, which would allow us to have the increased height for the project. Thank you. All right, thank you. And that's item 23 that's stated, provide the Planning Commission makes a finding, the plan complies with Article 8-1603 of the ordinance. And that's in our staff's recommendation. Do we have any questions from the community? Let's look. If anybody in the community would like to make a comment, please raise your hand. Seeing none, let's bring this to our committee and open it up between us for questions, comments, or motions. All right, this is work. I can't stare through the TV. I move approval of PLN MJDP 22-8 Lexington Clinic with the 23 conditions and a finding presented by staff that meets the form-based code pending some additional work on the open space and landscaping. Excellent. We have a second for that motion. We have a second. We are not going to repeat it. We got a second. All right. We can all vote on that now. Everyone please vote. All right. Thank you very much. That's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Carmen. Thank you, Mr. Rochelle. Thank you. I think that puts us on page seven. All right. Page seven, commission items. The chair will announce that any item a commission member would like to present will be heard at this time. I will be presenting the two public facility reviews. Bear with me. I've got to find my. Sorry, I don't have this on the go. All right. We're getting there. We've gone a little quick. I can't find my PowerPoint. I know it's in the Google Drive, but I don't know if it's on here. Do we have access to that? Yeah. All right, we're getting the presentation put out. Sorry about that. Today we will be presenting two public facility reviews. I understand that at least one of you is new to public facility reviews like I am. Here's my short struggle there. KRS-100 allows for public facility reviews to provide information about public facility projects. The Planning Commission can make comments and suggestions but cannot require changes to the proposal, and you will not issue any approval. Instead, the Planning Commission should make a finding that the project is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. So the first submittal that I'll be presenting is for the Village Branch of the Lexington Public Library. So this proposal is to construct a new branch library for the Village Branch. This is an existing library branch located at 2197 Versailles Road. The proposal involves the demolition of an existing branch library, a retail space that is attached to that structure, and a fast food restaurant in order to construct a new 30,000 square foot library branch building. So here is the location of the property. The existing branch library is located here, sharing a property line and a wall with the Save-A-Lot grocery store. We're at the corner of Versailles Road and Village Drive. The existing Long John Silver's restaurant here will also be demolished. So this is located in the Cardinal Valley area. The common parking area does have a reciprocal parking agreement between the save-a-lot property and the property that we're looking at today. They also have an ingress and egress easement with the retail development to the north up here. This property has split zoning with the front portion of the property being in the B1 zone and the rear portion being in the B3 zone. It's just over one and a half acres. Here we have the proposal. Uh-oh. That's wrong, too. The library is proposing a new 30,000 square foot two-story structure with a ground floor footprint of about 15,000 square feet and an outdoor pedestrian plaza in this location here. The interior spaces will be focused around a double-height, multi-purpose open space called the Marketplace, which they plan to use to host community events and gatherings. The first floor of the facility will also include community meeting rooms, multi-purpose rooms, and a makerspace. And then the second floor will be your more traditional library spaces, like the stacks and study rooms and reading rooms. The project will result in the loss of seven parking spaces. The existing lot contains 84, and 77 will be provided. The parking again is shared between the two properties here and there will be a total of 139 parking spaces available between the two lots. The project makes pedestrian connections to the neighborhood with the monumental stair, pedestrian ramps, and the use of a speed table. That's all happening in this vicinity over here. They are also planning to reserve the landscaped area here at the corner of the property for a future public art installation. So staff has reviewed this proposal to determine whether it is in accordance with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan and its adopted elements which include the Cardinal Valley small area plan. Staff has found that the public facility improvements for this new branch library will fully serve the needs of the community. There are no goals or objectives of the comp plans or in opposition to the proposed branch library. However, several goals and objectives as well as the policies of the plan support the project. The proposal is in agreement with a a number of the place builder criteria for a medium density non-residential mixed-use development type within a corridor place type. The proposed site design will result in a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere, will allow for public art opportunities, and will act as a new focal point for the neighborhood. The proposed building will be at an appropriate scale to respect the context of neighboring structures while setting the future context of a higher intensity along our corridors. The COMP plan supports green building practices and green infrastructure elements for development within the community and library and its systems will utilize green building standards. The Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan does recommend that the library branch be relocated to Oxford Circle. However, this proposal is generally within the spirit of that plan's recommendations. It will result in upgraded facilities that are comparable to other facilities at other library branches within the community and will remain accessible to the Oxford or the Cardinal Valley neighborhood at large. So that concludes my presentation and we will open it up to questions. Go ahead and stop my screen share. All right. Thank you very much. Do we have any comments from any of the commission members? I think that improvement of that library is one that we do. But that property they're renting, they don't know, correct? That I don't know. It's an old drugstore property. It's the Sableye. It's the location on the Sales Road next to it. But the building they're in was shared. There was a barbershop and a pawn shop. A barbershop changed into something else. I know that because it was my barbershop. And it changed into something else a few years ago. I don't recall what. but and then of course the long job so it's going to be um mr kevin warner is here today he might be able to answer if you have any questions that's what they play about all right and we also have mr mickler we can address mr warner i see him there if we would have any questions so mr mickler what do we have? Well, I mean, first, I'd second that it's an area of town that I think will be well served by a larger, expanded library. and you know that certainly seems to fit with a lot of the services and things that we want in the comprehensive plan as far as serving citizens needs. I did have a comment that I think would be or a question or a comment that I think would be a probably pretty standard one if any private developer was coming with a development plan that put the parking that left the that demolished the building and then left the parking on the intersection instead of behind the building as far as a um a layout so i did want to get the um designers or the the the plans comments on that because I do, as we review these over and over, we've been pushing private developers to bring their buildings forward to the street and the parking behind the buildings. So I'll turn that sort of question over to Kevin then. Yes, Mr. Warner, can you please respond to that? Yes, there are existing setback requirements that would not allow us to pull away toward the street. We wanted to do that, but in order to maintain the agreements between the adjacent property owners, in order to have the shared parking, we were very limited to where we could rebuild. We had to essentially put the building back where it was. However, as the plan showed, we are increasing the usable pedestrian space by taking some parking out to create that plaza in the front. so we felt that that was a vast improvement over the existing condition and by the way they do own the property now okay thank you thank you I mean this is a situation again where you have best design verse what's practical and what we can actually accomplish but that was a great I really I agree with that we would have had to pull that building up. That's what we would have liked to have seen. That's a good comment. Do we have any other comments or questions from the committee members? All right. I don't think we do public comment because we are within the commission items. Would anyone like to make a motion? Do we make a motion? What do we do? Sort of. You find that you agree with the findings presented by staff. Okay. We have the ability to make a motion regarding the findings presented by the staff. I think that's the way to handle it, whoever wants to take it. All right, Mr. Reckler, good. I move that we accept the findings by staff, that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Very good. Do we have a second? Mrs. Worth and Mrs. Worth, thank you very much. We'll vote on the item now. All in favor, please raise your hand. Looks like approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Warner. All right. That leads us to Autumn again, I believe, with item B, PFR 20-22-2, Lexington Police Department Police East Sector Roll Call. This is another public facilities review for the East Sector Roll Call Center for the Lexington Police Department. This proposal is to construct a new roll call facility on undeveloped land located at 4385 Clearwater Way. This proposal includes the construction of a one-story building with a partial partial basement level and associated parking area. This property is just under two acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Sarin Drive and Clearwater Way. So we are looking at this portion here. It is a portion of a much larger property so we are looking at the corner lot here, going over to the tree stand and then down to the floodplain area here. There are other adjacent land uses that include public facilities along the south side of Clearwater Drive. So over to the south here we have an elementary school. There's a fire station here adjacent to the subject property and then going on down to the southwest is Veterans Park. The other uses are primarily residential with the exception of a commercial and office building located here directly across the street. This property is located within an agricultural urban zone. Here we have the plan for the proposed police roll call station. The police department is proposing a 7,700 square foot one-story structure with a ground floor footprint of 6,200 square feet and a partial basement and storm shelter that will be about 1,500 square feet. They're proposing two access points on Sarin, which can be here and here, and one access point along Clearwater Way. The Clearwater Way access and the eight parking spaces located in front of the building right around here are designated as the public parking spaces. The rear lot will contain 52 parking spaces for police vehicles. The area between the construction and the fire station, as you saw on the aerial previously, is heavily treed and vegetated. And then the southernmost portion of the property does lie within a FEMA special flood hazard area. And the proposed construction is well away from that area and will preserve the tree line. Staff has reviewed this proposal to determine whether or not it is in accordance with the recommendations of the health plan. We do have some images here that were provided by the design team for this project. You can see some perspectives here. And then, oh, I have more of it. We just have these. So this will be the portion of the building facing Clearwater Way. And then over here we have the view from Saren. So again, staff has reviewed this for compliance with the comprehensive plan. Staff found that the public facility improvements for the police roll call center will fully serve the needs of the community and that there are no goals or objectives of the comp plan that are in opposition to this facility. is in agreement with a number of place builder criteria for a low density non-residential fixed use development type within an enhanced neighborhood place type. The proposed site design will maintain the existing tree canopy. The building will be on an appropriate scale to respect the context of the neighboring structures. And the use is one that fills a specific need by placing public services throughout the community. And again, in this case, the comp plan supports green building practices, which the proposed structure will utilize or be ready to utilize, including solar and geothermal systems. However, there are several placeholder criteria for low-density, non-residential, mixed-use development types within the Indian's neighborhood place type that the proposal does not address. Staff is recommending that the police department and or the Division of General Services consider modifying the proposal to respond to the three criteria that are listed here. ADS 5-3 says that building orientation should maximize connections with the surrounding area and create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. The proposed site layout does not include pedestrian connections to Clearwater Way, only to Sarin Drive. Staff recommends that the front yard setback be reduced as well to match the front yard setbacks of the duplexes and the office buildings that are directed across Clearwater Way, and that a pedestrian access be provided to connect to Clearwater Way. The second criteria that we would like to see addressed is A-DS71. One, parking should be oriented to the interior or rear of the property for non-residential development. Staff is recommending the police department consider relocating the eight public parking spaces to the side or the rear of the structure in order to create a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape along Clearwater Way. That would play into the moving structure up closer to the street as well. And then finally, ADS-72 states that any non-residential parking not buffered by a building should be screened from the streetscape view in adjacent properties. We are recommending that the police department consider using the vehicle or the use area permit or screening requirements that are typical for development that are located in Article 18 of the zoning ordinance. Upon receiving the staff's report, the design team has indicated that they would be agreeable to some of these recommendations, but not all of them, and we'll let them speak to that. They have indicated, though, that it would not be desirable for them to reduce the front yard setback or to relocate the parking due to the site's topography and a need to keep the public parking separated from the police vehicle parking. They have indicated that they're agreeable to providing the pedestrian connection to Clearwater Way and to providing the requested landscaping for the vehicle or use area. And that concludes my presentation. All right, do we have any questions for Autumn? Can you put the phone back up there so you hear their comments? If that's something you will have. Do we have a representative from the police department? No. We don't do that right now. Do we do that? We do have Ms. Falwell from the design firm that did the site layout. And I think we have somebody from also from general services available. Ms. Walsh, would you like to hear? Just in terms of the things that they said they didn't think they could do, if there's anything else that they have to do. All right. Mrs. Folliwell, would you like to comment on the staff report? Yes, the front of the building, you were concerned about pedestrian access to the front, and it was actually an oversight not to have a sidewalk going straight out to Clearwater. It's very easy to add another 16-foot strip there between the pavement and the existing sidewalk. the handicap spots were centered on the entry of the building so there would be an open welcoming area for pedestrians the slopes of that area are minor the other thing about the location of the front entryway it is equidistant from both sarin drive and clear water having some distance between the entryway and public roadways is a bit of a safety concern and then the idea or the request for putting the parking on the side of the building as you can see there's significant slope there if we were to try to put parking on that side we would have to go to retaining walls because there's a 20% slope, 10 foot fall at least. It would be an extreme expense, lots of land moving. And you would actually, we would have to haul in fill from other places, significantly, a significant amount of fill in order to put parking on that on the east side. The landscaping just hasn't quite been drawn yet is what it boils down to. We had intended to put landscaping between the parking and vehicular areas and the existing roadway. Thank you very much. Does anybody have any questions? Mr. Mickler. How many officers would be reporting to this roll call center? I'm pretty sure the number is a minimum of 50 at a single. um that's the word 50 at a single ship so uh having the 60 total spaces is keeping it tight as in one officer has to leave before another one can park okay thanks donna someone else has raise their hand. I think it's the architect. Okay. Mr. Rollins. All right. Mr. Rollins, the architect, would you like to make some comments? While we're waiting for Mr. Rollins, I want to point out that we have taken advantage of the fall on this site it you see all those lines there we have over 27 feet of fall from the road to the back of our site i'm actually making use of that laying the site laying the parking and building and everything along the existing lay of the land if you will um so it's gonna sort of fit in there as if it has always fit in there. We're not doing a major modification to the layout of the property. The most cut and fill we have, we have about a six foot fill in one spot and that's at that entry, that front entryway. That's where our largest fill is. And then we have about five foot of cut at our basement access just in one spot. And then we have four foot of fill way down on the way farthest in from the building. So we're trying to take as much advantage of the slope of the land and have as few cut and fill as possible to make it fit in with this existing environment. All right, Mr. Fulton, Ms. Fulwell, do you mind making a comment on the reasoning behind putting the public parking and the handicap accessible parking in the front of the building on Sierra Drive? Because that is the public entrance. The basement is just a storm shelter and storage shelter. And to keep the building as close to the property as possible, we've put the majority of the parking in behind it. Is that what you were asking? Yes, and I would see the correlation between handicap accessibility would be easier from clear water it looks like. Yes, I mean so I've got the handicap parking literally sitting right in front of the front door. They get out of the cars, come up to the sidewalk, and it's 14 feet from the front of their car to the entry. They're saying with a 27 foot ball to the back of the property from the front you want to put the handicap as close to the front as possible. But she did. Exactly and that is actually the only entry to the first floor there the entry how do I describe this entryway there's a stairwell entry toward the back it's showing up as sort of an orange tinted area in the yes right there that is a stairwell entry they the officers will actually be entering into a stairwell at the halfway point they'll walk into the stairwell and they'll either go upstairs to the main floor or downstairs to the basement kind of like split level house Thank you. Do we have any more questions or Mr. Rollins, if you've joined us, would you like to make any comments? You were asking about the occupancy earlier. We have on the main level, we have a desk for about 22 officers. And then the roll call area has a seating of 48. And then there's a meeting room that's adjacent to that with occupancy of about around 40 as well. So, but I just wanted to follow up on that question earlier. All right, thank you. Samantha? Samantha? Looks like she answered. Looks like we've got a raised hand from Samantha from Long Range, I believe. I don't know if that's on purpose or not. I'm not sure if I'm, are you all taking comments from the public? on this one. I mean, we can if the staff, if we would like to. Wouldn't you like to take public comment? Sure. Please make a comment. I always like to hear from somebody. I can turn on my videos. So I want to say that I am commenting. I have not seen this proposal, and I am commenting strictly as a citizen right now. I live at 899 GRS Drive, which is right around the corner from this. So I'm not representing the planning department. This is just me as a concerned citizen. And I just have a question, and that relates to the location of this right next to Veterans Park Elementary. And I know how busy that intersection at Sarin and Clearwater gets. And so I'm not sure if you have any other roll call stations elsewhere in the city where you've dealt with, you know, a high mass of like walking children and parents and carpool drop off and all that stuff right next to a roll call center and how you'll work around that. I would say that it has proven that those roadways can handle that volume. The police shift changes will not coincide with the elementary schools coming in and out. So although on a day basis, it will increase traffic, it will not increase or hinder the peak times. The other benefit of having the police so close to the elementary school is that you do have that close protection. And then you can have a much higher interaction between the police officers and the elementary students, whether it's resource. Well, the resource officers are also stationed there at the roll call center. so they're they're a much easier interaction and get a foster a greater connection to the students as they grow up and so you know when you when you have a child who's afraid of the police they're going to grow up afraid of the police but if you kept capturing at that stage and um introduce them and let them know that this is a safe place these are safe people then they carry that and it it's a it's a long-term benefit to the community, I believe. Great. Thank you. Thank you for humoring me, everybody. Not in your backyard. All right. Would we like to make any more comments, questions, or a motion regarding PFR 2022-2, Lexington Police Department, police de-sex parole. Before we do that, could we get those three more pretensions in front of us? We've heard your comments. And really, these are recommendations for them to consider. And obviously, Ms. Falwell, as the site designer, can explain some of the reasoning behind there. I think she's on. And also seemed to agree that some changes were still coming. All right, would anybody like to take a stab at this? Is this a motion that is in compliance with the conference of Master Planes? Yes. Okay, I'll skip. I move that we find that PFR 2022-2, the Lexington Police Department, police sector roll call design plan proposal is in compliance with the comprehensive master plan and encourage the design team to consider the three recommendations from the staff line. Very good. Do we have a second? We have a second for Mr. Bell. We'll go ahead and vote on this. Everybody, please vote. It's like unanimous approval. Thank you very much, Autumn, an applicant. Thank you, Autumn. Now, before we get to staff items, we need to not forget the performance bonds, page 5. Item C, performance bonds and letters of credit. Any bonds or letters of credit requiring commission action will be considered at this time. Provision of engineering will report. They submit the memo. All right. everybody please look at your Google Drive memo. And if someone would like to approve the bond and letter of credit, let's go. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the release and call of bonds memo presented to us today. All right, we have a second from Mrs. Barksdale. Very good. We'll all vote. Vote unanimous approval. Thank you very much. That moves us to the staff items. Do we have any staff items? Oh, there's Mr. Duncan right there. Hi. Mr. Chair, we are enjoying this rotating pair of chairs, and you did an outstanding job today. So we look forward to others stepping into that role. Well, I wanted to remind you all that we are inviting you to spend the afternoon of St. Patrick's Day with us next Thursday, March the 14th at 1.30 for the Planning Commission work session. We will be meeting in person on the third floor of this building. And just as a reminder, there is no longer a mask requirement for visitors to the building. But you are certainly free to do what you need to do. But we want you to be a part of that meeting. And if you want to wear your mask, you're welcome to. We will be discussing information related to the upcoming 2023 comprehensive plan and the public input process leading up to that. So we have a robust meeting for you that our long-range section is working on for next Thursday, the 17th at 1.30, and we hope you can all be present. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. And with that, we will adjourn. Appreciate it. Enjoy this beautiful day. Thank you. Shepherds 5. And Green Beard. I was going to say, no Green Beard. No Green Beard. Thank you.