We do not have any minutes for approval today, which will take us to item number three, postponements and withdrawals. My name is Jihad Hallani with Vision Engineering. We'd like to postpone on page three, item B, the Belmont Farm Citation Center, For two weeks postponement on page three, item B, please. For two weeks? Yes, sir. All righty. And which meeting would that be? I'm sorry? I'm sorry. I was asking. Mrs. Wade. We do have a zoning hearing on June the 27th, but typically we don't postpone our development plans two weeks. Okay. 30 days, I guess. 30 days. Okay. And where would we land on that, Tracy? What's our four-week meeting? It is July the 11th. July the 9th? 11th. 11th, thank you. It's on the back there. All righty. Is there any discussion on this postponement or a motion? I'll move to postpone PLN MJDP 23-64 to July the 11th. Second. Thank you. Motion by Mr. Mickler, second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? If not, we will vote. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Hi, I'm Erica Strecker, and we would like to postpone ours as well. This is Plan 24-00028. It is page four. All righty, this is the Preston Edition subdivision? Correct. And how long would you like to postpone? Well, we were hoping for June 27th as well, but if that's not likely, then July 11th would be fine as well. All righty. Thank you. Is there any discussion or questions? If not, we can have a motion. I'll move to postpone PLN MJDP 24-28 to July the 11th. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Second by Mr. Pohl. Any discussion? If not, we will vote. All righty, that also passes unanimously, thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Martin. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, staff would like to bring the commission's attention to page two, item A under development plans. This is a major development plan 23-50, Wolf Run Industrial Park, block A, lot one. The applicant has requested a one month postponement. It will be the eighth postponement on this particular project. Staff's most recent information is that the applicant is reviewing a new use on the property with a potential purchaser. So they requested another one month postponement. One month over to July 11th. All right, is there any discussion or motion on that postponement request? Mr. Wilson? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan MJDP 23-50 Wolf Run Industrial Park until July 11th. Second. Thank you. Motion by Mr. Wilson, second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? If not, we will put that to a vote. And that also passes unanimously. Anything else, Mr. Martin? Okay. So that would take us to item number, I'm sorry, page two, consent agenda. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Davis. We do have three items that appear on your consent agenda for this afternoon, and I'll read those out loud. And if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have those heard, if you'll just raise your hand, we'll have the commission pull those off the consent agenda and do a presentation of those. So the first item is a final subdivision plan recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. And this is in an agricultural rural zone. And so we'll just double check with Mr. Rowland that he has submitted the signposting affidavit. Mr. Rowland. Do you have it available today? Okay, so we'll have to postpone that one. And what is it? Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry, for a subdivision plat, we do need, in the agricultural rural area, there's a signposting required, and the ordinance requires that an affidavit be submitted for the commission. So let me move to item number two, development plans recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. The first is on page four, item D, PLN MJDP 24-30, Greendale Hills, Unit 3, also known as the Downing Properties for Parcels 2 and 3, Oakdale Development. This is for property located at 2425 Malundi Way. Is anyone in the audience that wishes to have this item heard? Okay. And the next item is page five, item E, PLN MJDP 24-31, Crestwood Montessori School, also now known as the Redwood Cooperative School Expansion. And that's part of, this also includes part of the Lansdowne Subdivision, Unit 5C, Block A, Lots 3 and 4. So it's an amended final development plan for properties located at 166 Crestwood Drive, and then incorporates 125 and 129 Greenbrier Road. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to have this item heard today? Okay, seeing none, those two items can be considered by the commission together. And then we'll circle back to Mr. Rowland about his plat, and if he can get an affidavit today, we can still hear it. Okay. All righty, so the consent agenda with the two development plans recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. Is there any discussion amongst the planning commission? If not, we can entertain a motion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the consent agenda with the two items as indicated of the development plans as provided by staff. Second. All righty, thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second by Commissioner Wirth. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. So, by my count, that puts us on page, I guess, let's see here. Five? No, sorry. We're breezing through. Page six. Is that right, Paula? Maple Leaf? Okay. Okay. Yeah, page six. Thank you. I was just looking to see if the applicant was here. We can ask, is there someone here representing Arnold Consulting Engineering Services today? Okay. Okay. This property is located off of, this is Maple Leaf and Manowar. There's a shopping center at this location. They're proposing to come in and build a new building right here in the center. this will be goodwill. You can see here that there was a goodwill in the rear portion of the property and now they're wanting to build a new one because that will make it larger for them for more storage. So with that, we have our typical sign-offs. We had a few cleanup conditions to correct plan title, remove labeling, remove the plus minus off the plan. And then we had one discussion. This is why this was being brought to you all today. Discuss the floor area ratio and lock coverage for entire commercial center in compliance with Article 12 of the zoning ordinance. In Article 12, the minimum floor area ratio is .3. And at this current time, with the buildings that are built at this current time, it has .146. But after adding their building, they're going to come up to .26. And they're still not able to meet the floor area ratio of .3 as an overall. So we had some concerns to how that was going to be met. And they gave us these numbers of what is there and what after their proposal. And so therefore, they're making it less non-conforming. So the whole shopping center is not completed. There's still a large portion of the shopping center to the rear that can be developed. There's some additional buildings, square footage in this area. They have some buildings up here that have been built in the last couple of years, but they have a large portion of unbuilt areas. So we're hoping that when that comes in, it'll come closer to the floor area ratio required in the B6P. Thank you, Cheryl. Any questions? Any questions for Cheryl? Thank you. Do we, oh, Mr. Jones. Sorry, Cheryl. So with this, the whole development doesn't have enough in the way of floor area ratio. Well, right. What they went back and they calculated what is built and used right now, and that was half 0.14 of what the floor area ratio at the 0.3. This is an older shopping center, and so that might have something to do with it. But now with adding the square footage that they want to in the front, the reason they brought this in is because they were reducing the square footage, which then changed the open space and floor area ratio. So that's why we brought it to you. I missed that. They're actually reducing their building a little bit. From what was originally, I think it's just a couple hundred feet. It wasn't by much, but at that, it's, so without the remaining portion of the shopping center, once that gets built, it might bring it up to that 0.3%. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilson? One quick question. No, this is just a clarification. Okay, on number 14 it says discuss. Should that be resolved? Yes. Okay, then we'll change the discuss to resolve. Number 14. Okay. Any other thoughts, questions? The applicant just walked in. Oh, okay, good. All right, well, if there are no other questions for Cheryl, we will hear from the applicant. Welcome. Just please step up and state your name. I apologize. My name is Cheyenne Rogers. I work with Arnold Consulting and Engineering. Like Cheryl had said, the floor area ratio is the biggest issue. But there are several other down in the corner down here that are not yet built, so that could be resolved within that. But from what was proposed previously, we are reducing it by, it's not much, it's not even a thousand square foot. but that is the only, that's the biggest issue that we've run into so far. But if you guys have any questions or concerns that you'd like to ask me, then I'd be more than happy to help. No questions for the applicant? If not, thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have anyone wishing to comment on this plan? Seeing none. Are there any final commissioner comments or questions before we entertain a motion? Mr. Nickel, Commissioner, thank you. My comment would be this looks like, I believe we do and we have, hopefully will, take into consideration that this is an older development and it is becoming more incompliant to the floor area ratio that is required with the B6P. We found that that has been difficult in quite a few developments, and it looks like they made a good effort in considering the possibility for further development on the property. I don't see there's any other reason to do anything but make a recommendation for approval of PLNMJDP 24-32 Maple Leaf Subdivision, Lot 8, Goodwill, AMD, with the 14 conditions. Number 14, changing disgust to resolve. So that is a motion. Thank you. And Commissioner Barksdale seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. Mr. Owens? Commissioner Owens? Bill, would you? Thank you, that passes unanimously. Our next item, page seven, PLN Zota 24-4, regulation of outdoor lighting. Good afternoon everyone, Mr. Chair, Planning Commission, fellow Lexingtonians, UNC crew, my name is Boyd Seri, I'm a senior planner with Long Range Planning and I'm here to present PLN's author 24-4 outdoor lighting. The 2045 Comprehensive Plan, Tim B Protection Policy No. 10, called for the reduction of light pollution and for us to protect dark skies. Reducing light pollution is important for several reasons. Light pollution disrupts the natural sleep-wake cycle for people and animals. Excessive lighting can negatively impact the behavior and reproduction of plants and animals. It can result in unnecessary energy consumption, which can contribute to increased greenhouse emissions. In Lexington zoning, Article 16 provides parking lot lighting regulations. This doesn't go far enough to cover all the outdoor lighting. It just covers parking lots, and Article 30 is intended to extend past parking lots to all outdoor lighting. The zoning tax amendment was initiated by Council on April 25th. This date is important because as a Council initiated ZOTA, there is a 60-day time limit for Planning Commission to make recommendation. Hopefully we have a recommendation by the end of this session. This amendment seeks to establish clear standards for outdoor lighting, minimize light pollution, glare, light trespass, sky glow, and nocturnal impacts on animals and plants. It also ensures a safe nighttime environment for pedestrians, motorists, and properties. This order is a collection of the best practice from across the nation. In this order, the outdoor lighting requirements, this ordinance applies to all zones, excluding agricultural zones, like agricultural rural, agricultural buffer, and agricultural natural zone. There are exemptions to this article which includes light fixtures with low luminance such as string lights, landscape lights and most residential outdoors. Also federal and state regulated lighting is exempt from this, those lights that go to flag poles and building code. In this ZOTA we will have recommendations on lighting plans. This ordinance provides guidelines on what is to be included in a lighting plan and a lighting plan will be triggered by a landscape plan or where a final development plan is needed. Standards for a lighting plan ensure compliance with the regulations outlined in this ordinance. A lighting plan is important not just because it's best practice but it offers an effective, comprehensive and objective outdoor lighting ordinance. A lighting plan on its own, just like a landscape plan on its own, can lead to site conflicts. Examples here, you can see a light pole in the middle of a sidewalk, a light pole in a parking lot, and a light pole in the trees, which is conflict with the site. Then we have lighting standards, which includes fully shielded light fixtures, as you can see from right to left for you. There's the non-shielded, there's the semi-shielded, shielded, and the fully shielded. The non-shielded is what we normally see a lot of, and the semi-shielded, a lot of people have moved to the shielded, but with all those, the first three I've mentioned, there's still light trespass, there's still sky glow, and we are looking for the fully shielded where light goes specifically to where we want to eliminate, not past that. With this ordinance, so that's the fully shielded rule. With this oil lamps, we also regulate the maximum color temperature to 300 kelvins. This is a best practice that is supported by traffic engineering. And for those who don't know, the cold kelvins, that's up to the 10,000. Cool and cold are used for indoor lighting. The warm is what's recommended for outdoor lighting, so we are recommending it at 3,000 kelvins. and also we will be regulating the height limit of light fixtures right now we have in article 16 we have it at 12 feet we want to move it to 25 feet that's best practice and it reduces the number of lighting fixtures used and the less lighting fixtures we use the less energy we use and that with the less energy source, it helps reduce pollution. With the lighting standards, we also look at the maximum lumens allowed depending on the development. We have non-residential capped at 100,000 lumens per net acre and residential property shall not exceed 25,000 acres. Once again, on the right side, the sky is that color because of all the light from that property. That's actually a whole town. And you see that the sky is a different color, but what we are shooting for is the picture on the right, which is dark skies. Also, with this regulation, we will regulate light trespass. regulations to limit light trespass for property on property lines to 0.5 foot candles. One candle foot is one lumen, so if you can imagine what the light of half a candle is, that will be the maximum that can cross your property line. Overall this is what we are aiming for. We would like to have limit the sky glow, limit light trespass, limit backlight, limit glare zones, and concentrate on the useful light. And just like with every article in the zoning regulations, we have special provisions. There will be incentives where the light trespass is below 0.1 foot candle, where the maximum lumens provided meet all the requirements of the ordinance at 25% of the allowable lumens, incentives for innovative and fancy lighting design. The planning commission may approve modifications to height and locations of light fixtures. Shout-outs to the Lexington legends who play Gastonia tonight. That's the legends field. With this, there are exceptions to the entertainment and outdoor lighting and recreation. so it will have increased maximum lumens and kelvins. Kelvins will be capped at 4,100. That's more than sufficient for spectators to view games and for photography and video recording. We'll also have increased mounting heights to 80 feet for venues with up to 2,500 seats and 125 feet for venues with over 2,500 seats. Specific hours of operations, as Mr. Sean Carter would say, turn the lights down, the games are over. The hours of operation for the lighting system shall not exceed one hour after the end of the game. And finally, accessory users like parking lots in these venues must still comply with the recommendations of this article. This ordinance is based on a collection of successful ordinances from within the state like Louisville, prospect independence and across the nation. These are some of the jurisdictions we looked at. And after the last presentation that we had with the zoning committee, there was an amendment to exclude the principal and accessory users within agricultural rural, agricultural buffer, and agricultural natural zones. and that's the updated text. Also, since our last meeting, there were other affected articles, like Article 12 was affected where we added the line regulated by Article 30, and Article 16 also had some changes. We removed part of it and added be regulated by Article 30. All in all, staff recommends approval of Article 30. It aligns with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, promotes light pollution reduction, and provides clear guidance to consistent outdoor lighting. And that's Article 25. Any questions? Article 30, not 25. Thank you, Boyd. Does anyone have any questions for Boyd? Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. Yes, thank you again for the presentation. I should have brought this up earlier, but I have one quick question regarding outdoor lighting in regards to sporting events. Are there any exceptions made to make sure that when sporting events take place outside and need extra lighting, that enough lighting is sufficient to keep the players safe? because if there's any shadows on the field, they won't be able to be safe that way, even though the spectators can see and pitches can't be taken, but the players wouldn't be safe at that point. Thank you. Let me look it up. But there's something in the lighting plan that says – give me a second here. It should be – according to the lighting plan, that's why lighting plans are submitted. you can see on there we specifically say you cannot have dark spots in your lit areas so we shouldn't expect to have any issues with that we looked at safeties just just for players but pedestrians property and animals and plants and all that thank you boy are there any other questions I have a it's not even a question it's clarification thank you for your help this week on the text that I had asked about at zoning and what we have on Granicus and what's printed in front of us it does not reflect that change that you had where this is excluded from the principal and accessory uses from the AR, AB and A N But what you have there is yes, is what we're voting on today. Is that right? With our findings, we recommended what was presented today. I'm sorry? Let me go to the last. So staff recommended approval of what is presented today, the language we presented. So it should be in there. Okay, so just basically including conditional uses in the ARAB and AN. Yes. That it would be, those conditional uses would be subject to this ordinance. Yes. Okay, all right. Thank you. Are there any other questions or motion? And if it's okay, whoever makes the motion, I would ask that we do include that in the motion. that what Boyd has up there, the corrected, the language that came out as a result of the committee's work being included in the motion. You'll get to a stab at that. Okay. I'm not working today. Yeah. Sorry, I can get this lined up here. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN ZODA 24000004, regulation of outdoor lighting, with one change in the text with the wording recommended by Mr. Davis for section 30.2. Does that work? We've got it as an additional handout. Can you also, in addition to Mr. Davis's ask, add in Article 12 that was presented by Mr. Sewe and Article 16 that is on a separate sheet that you have in front of you? Okay, I change that to, in addition to the verbiage suggested by Mr. Davis, the changes to Section 12.8, G, lighting, and Article 16, Section 16.3, changes to B. Would that do it? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second from Mr. Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. I'm sorry, Mr. Jonathan Davis. All righty. That passes unanimously. Thank you all for your work. We very much appreciate it. Okay. Okay. Next item on our agenda is PFR 2024-2 Fayette County Public Schools, Autumn. Could you please go back to page six and address the performance bonds before the PFR? Sure. Page six. How did that get behind me? All right, performance bonds and letters of credit. We have a printout from staff. And the chair will entertain a motion if there is no discussion on that. I move to approve the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. Thank you, Mr. Michler. Second from Commissioner Barksdale. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will vote. Mr. Commissioner Jonathan Davis. That's all right. That's all right. All righty, that passes unanimously. Sorry for going out of order there. All right, good afternoon. This is a public facility review for Fayette County Public Schools for the RISE STEM Academy for Girls. This is at 2160 for Sales Road. The new address for the property will be 988 Mason-Headley Road. And their proposal is to construct a new 116,000 square foot elementary school. As a reminder, for public facility reviews, you all are not making a recommendation to approve or disapprove, but rather a finding whether or not this project is in accordance with the comprehensive plan, if it agrees with the goals and objectives of the comp plan. So the property that we are looking at today is located on the south side of Versailles Road at the intersection of Versailles Road and Mason-Headley. It's shown in green here. It currently has AU Agricultural Urban Zoning. The area around it has a variety of zoning types with B1 across the street. That's the Cardinal Hill. That's the valley was in my head. And then across the street, there's a cemetery and some commercial uses, and then largely single-family and some duplexes to the south and southwest of the property. Again, here just showing an aerial of the property. This property is about 33 acres and currently contains a couple of single-family dwelling units. This is a large estate lot that the school system has acquired. Just kind of zooming in on what the site looks like today. So the school is proposing to construct a two-story, 116,000-square-foot facility with a partial basement for use by approximately 900 students in kindergarten through eighth grade that are participating in an all-girls STEM program. So the facility will include classrooms, administrative spaces, a media center, maker spaces, cafeteria, your typical sort of school things, as well as outdoor play areas. The school building is designed to be net zero ready and will utilize enhanced building envelope commissioning. They are leaving the access that exists along Versailles Road that's located here and providing a bus loop. so all of the school buses that are bringing the students in will come in on this entrance on Versailles Road, circle around and drop the kids off and come back out this way. Parents and teachers who are parking or utilizing drop-off will enter from a new access point on Mason-Headley, which is being widened by the city to include a new turn lane and a multi-use trail. So parents will loop through here, exiting out back onto Mason-Headley. And then we've got parking here. They are proposing 123 parking spaces. Then we've got a few renderings of the proposed school here. So in our staff review, because the site is located along a corridor, but also within an existing residential and mixed-use neighborhood, staff felt that the school could fit into one of two place types, either the corridor place type or the enhanced neighborhood place type. We felt that the enhanced neighborhood place type was probably a little bit closer to this particular site given the proximity to the single family dwellings in the rear and the relationship of the layout of the school. So you can see on the screen some of the site priorities for enhanced neighborhoods and for the proposed development type which we classified as low density non-residential mixed use. Staff did find that there were several goals and objectives that support the application, including theme A, goal 4, to address community facilities at a neighborhood scale. And then under that goal, objective A, to incorporate schools, libraries, parks, greenways, and other community-focused educational and recreational facilities into neighborhoods in order to maximize safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. And then also theme D, goal 1, work to achieve an effective, equitable, and comprehensive transportation system, with objective F stating that we should enhance public, or enhance transportation options that are affordable, equitable, and responsive to the needs of residents and that support their preferred or necessary mode of transportation with an emphasis on sidewalk improvements and connectivity. So while this property is including a lot of vehicular use areas, it also is including a lot of sidewalk connections to the existing sidewalks along Versailles and also the new multi-use trail along Mason-Headley. There are also several policies that support this application that are outlined in the staff report. We did find though that there were a few policies that the application did not address, so we do have a couple of recommendations by staff. First we found that criteria ADS 5-4, development should provide a pedestrian oriented and activated streetscape and policy DSP12, which says school design should prioritize a high percentage of open and accessible street frontage. We found that those two were not really being addressed in this situation because the proposed school is sited towards the rear of the property with the parking and drop off areas in between the school building and the street frontages. However, we understand that the site is rather large and there may be some future development that will occur here. It's likely that placing the school in this layout makes sense right now for the proposed use and putting the school building itself back closer towards the neighborhood and separating the vehicle uses from the neighborhood. But we do recommend that any future development include buildings that are located along the front edge of the property to reduce the visual impact of that parking and vehicle use area and to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Our second recommendation is related to criteria ADS 5-1, which says safe multimodal facilities should be provided to ensure vehicular separation from bicycles, pedestrians, and other modes of transport. So we worked with Traffic Engineering in reviewing this application, and they indicated some concerns about the sidewalk layout, that it was located directly adjacent to parking areas, and they had concerns that overhanging vehicles could reduce the space available on the sidewalk for walking on the sidewalk. So they do recommend increasing the sidewalk width, or that the applicant ensure that there are wheel stops at all parking spaces. And then they also recommended that there be a five-foot landscape area between the driving lanes and the sidewalk to enhance pedestrian safety and comfort rather than pouring that monolithically as a dry vial and then immediately the sidewalk. And that's consistent with some things that we have seen Fayette County Public Schools do in other school sites. So it should be a relatively moderate tweak to make. So with that, I'll answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Autumn. Are there any questions? Mr. Mickler? Yeah, looking at the development plan along the rear of the property, there's a small demarcation that's titled the lane and I believe that's like a small I don't know if it's, is that public right away or where does that fall? Is that private property? Is that public? Private street or is it a, I don't remember. I don't know. Tom, do you know if it's a private street? A private street. That's what sounds right to me. Tom can use your microphone. Not sidetracked. Yeah, I believe it is technically a private street, but again, it's very old, been there for a long time. It is very narrow, very substandard, and it loops around the silo. Well, I realize that this school is being designed as a sort of a city-wide concept rather than a neighborhood school. But if there were students in the adjoining neighborhood, right now the site plan directs them all out onto pretty busy streets for pedestrian access. And so I'm looking at that and sort of curious if that was a way to provide neighborhood pedestrian access to the site for pedestrian students or walking students. There are a couple of representatives from Fayette County Public Schools here with us, so they may be able to answer some of your questions. All righty. Do we have any other questions? Mr. Owens. Thank you. I'm curious. Historically, as far as what I remember, public schools, schools did not want heavily wooded areas. This is showing a heavily wooded area and it looks like a pond as well, which has always been told to me would present safety concerns. So I'm just wondering what's going on there. I'll defer to the applicant on that. My understanding is that they were intending to preserve as much of the natural features on the site, but they can. They did, you know, in our plan review meeting that I attended with the school system, they indicated that, you know, there would be much fewer trees around the immediate portion of the school, but that they did plan to maintain a number of trees at the perimeter. So for safety reasons. But I think they can probably better answer that question than I can about their safety protocols. Okay. Thank you. Before we go to Fayette County Public Schools, are there any other questions for Autumn? Mr. Pohl. I guess I'd like some clarification about staff's recommendation for, let me find the language. Separation of the multimodal transportation from the driving lanes. I'd like clarification that that separation would be both vertical and horizontal. So in other words, the pedestrian and bicycle lanes would be above the curb and separated, hopefully, by plantings from the driving lanes. Thank you. Anything else for Autumn at this point? If not, thank you. Hi, I'm Billy Motch with Element Design. I'm Sarah Lemire with Ross Town Architects. And we're the design representatives for Fayette County Public Schools who have been working on this project. So we'd be happy to answer any of the questions. I know there was one about connection to the surrounding neighborhood. We've had just one public meeting. We've had one public meeting, and the response there was they wanted as much separation as possible and did not want any connectivity. So that's why you see on this plan that the perimeter is still very densely screened, all the existing trees we plan to leave there. It is currently fenced and will remain fenced to help appease those neighbors who were concerned about the proximity of the school to the lane and the adjacent properties. What was the other question? I'm sorry. Mr. Owen's question about the pond. The pond, yes. So being that this is a STEM school, there is a lot of opportunity in nature. and this pond is currently fenced. It will remain fenced after the construction of the school, so there will be limited access. Teachers will have to take students to the pond, but that pond is also staying to help with some water quality. There's a lot of fish in the pond, and again, there's just a lot of learning that can happen with water resources, and being that this is natural, well, man-made natural. It's been there for a long time. this can enhance their education opportunities on the property. Here, Mr. Mickler, then Mr. Pohl. Could you, sorry, go ahead, Rob. Well, just touching on that pedestrian connectivity, we see on a monthly basis every single plan. There's an element of change, and with change, we get requests for buffers and to not connect and lack of connectivity. And that's something that, for better or worse, is almost a constant with every single development, but that doesn't mean that our comprehensive plan doesn't say we should make those connections. And I would hope that over the years, some of the students who would attend this school would be from the adjoining neighborhood, even if that's not the main target. And I would hope that we can find a way to not make them walk out onto Versailles Road and back in and would be able to connect to that adjoining neighborhood. And I do understand that this, like every single development, has people from the adjoining neighborhood asking not to connect. We can definitely talk with Bay County Public Schools and ask them about making a connection here along the lane somewhere. But I can't make any promises right now. But we'll definitely talk with them about trying to penetrate one of the sides for that connection. Could you discuss the potential for the pedestrian and bicycle? With the recommendation that was made by staff, I'm not certain which connection or which part they're talking about. if they're talking about the sidewalk that runs along the drop-off loop, which adding a buffer in between the sidewalk and where the students are getting out of their cars doesn't necessarily make sense when you're dropping your children off in the morning. So I'm not sure which part of the site they're wanting a buffer between. Is there a bicycle lane along Mason-Healy Road? There's a bicycle lane on Mason-Healy, correct. Is that separated from the driving lanes? It, that is not part of this project. That is a separate project and it is, I believe it's an on-street trail and then there's also a sidewalk. But I could be misspeaking there. We're going to hear from traffic, which I knew was going to happen. Come on, Hubba, I'm sorry. David Philly, Traffic Engineering. So my comment was basically not about like the drop-offs area, but as you come up to the, everything's monolithic and it's five foot sidewalks, so you're directly adjacent to traffic. traffic so the example i gave to autumn was uh if you look at tates creek high school that renovation there's a degree of separation from the driving lanes in and the uh the parking lot so it's a lot we're gonna be a lot more comfortable to walk and like you said the picket the drop-offs areas that makes sense they're gonna step right out and not but it's like entering uh just getting some space between the the cars and the okay that's all that's all sure okay thank you for clarifying i wasn't sure what was what was meant there and traffic if you want to stay close i have a feeling there's going to be. So are you saying that the bicycle lane is immediately adjacent to the traffic lane on Mason-Headley Road? No, no, that's so that's an engineering project currently. No, that kind of our standard is generally getting that separation. So it should it's going to have I can't remember what it is but there'll be a separation and then an eight or ten foot multi-use path and that's on the west side of Mason-Headley. Okay, great. Correct, yeah, there will be sidewalks on the other side as well but the multi-use path is on the west side. Thank you. It's not a question, just a comment, because the last time you were here, we were hearing a plan to remove all the vegetative material from school grounds at a different school, and I want to say thank you for leaving as much green material as you have. I know it's not this project, but I did manage to add some green grass back into the other project. We're trying. All righty. I have a question for David. Just on Mason Heatley, I mean, I drive that stretch a lot, and sometimes it can get a little narrow, and it can back up and get a little precarious. I mean, I suppose, do you have a comfort level with what will be all of this added? Say the last part again, I'm sorry. You have a comfort level with the plan and what we're being presented with as far as traffic is concerned. It's been ingress and egress, yes. So the reconstruction of there extends essentially slightly south of this property line. So within that area, there's plenty of capacity to ingress and egress. Okay, great. Great. Do we have any other questions for the Fayette County Public School representatives or David or anybody? Alrighty. Thank you all. Now, we will hear any public comment on this particular plan. If you have comment, you're welcome to make it now. If there is none, we will discuss it amongst ourselves. If there is any discussion or any final thoughts from the commissioners. Mr. Wilson. Just one quick question. Mr. Jones, this is ministerial, isn't it? It is. I mean, you all can make recommendations to them, but they are not subject to our zoning ordinance. That's what I thought. So they can take them or not. So in terms of a motion, then, what we're really doing is just saying that this fits in connection with the comprehensive plan. Yes. And that's about it. Okay, thank you. So it's following Mr. Wilson's question. We say it is or is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. with the recommendations of staff being encouraged or can we include that or is that just a given? I mean, you're making findings that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, whether or not those recommendations are acted on, but you can reference them in your motion if you want to. But they do not have to follow. They're not binding. Yeah. All righty. Thank you. Okay. Well, the floor is certainly open for a motion. The floor is open for a motion, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve PFR 2024-2 Fayette County Public Schools Rise STEM Academy. And we do so with the conditions of the staff being of major consideration, specifically the one related to that this plan is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Second. Thank you, and a second by Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion to that motion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Our next item on the commission is the nominating committee for commission officers. So it's that time of year, middle of June, this body, in accord with our bylaws, is to put together a nominating committee of individuals to present a slate the following month. Volunteers are welcome. Discussions welcome. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. I would be happy to be on that committee. Thank you, Mr. Nickel. indeed. Mrs. Worth, thank you. Is three the number, Jim? Okay, well that was easy. So thank you commissioners Nickel, Worth, and Mickler. I suppose we need a motion for that, Jim? Not necessarily. Okay. This is the ad hoc committee. Okay, all righty. Well the nominating committee without objection is so formed. Thank you all for your willingness to do that. All right. We're now at the bottom of page seven, staff items. A, PLN, MJDP 2376. And Tracy, do you think we're okay to just proceed? Or will this be a lengthy item and maybe we should take five minutes? It won't. Well, I don't think it'll be lengthy. Okay. All right. That's great. Thank you. I will note on the agenda we have the wrong address for this case, but it is instead of Frankfort Court, which is on the other side of town, The address is 4085 Harrodsburg Road. So this is a site the commission is fairly familiar with. It came in for a zone change within the last five years, and now we're on our second development plan, final development plan for it. It's called the Shriners Hospital. First time owner, then it became the Masonic Temple Association property, and it's being developed for a mixture of commercial and residential property. we are here today because there was an issue in the field related to tree protection on the site. So the engineer of record submitted some plans for construction and a land disturbance permit, which excluded tree protection of four red oaks on the property, and those oaks were removed in the field, and the urban forester discovered this at a site visit. And so he let the Division of Planning know that he would not be signing off on the development plan because it didn't meet the approved tree protection plan, which included protection of four red oaks, and that has been on the plan since it was first rezoned. Tracy, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Do we have this in Granicus? We probably don't. My PowerPoint. Our things say voting in progress still. I just wanted to see if we could pull up. I don't think the PowerPoint is in Granicus. The development plan is, but not the... Okay. Well, while Paula works on that, we'll keep going. I just wanted to be able to see as you spoke. Thank you. Sure. So this is our most recent aerial photograph of the site from earlier this spring. And again, it's kind of an odd-shaped parcel. Blue lane will connect into it, and the front portion will be commercial, and then the rear portion will be residential. And the connection to the south is from Syringa Drive and Palomar Boulevard, and then Harrodsburg Road is out along the southeast of the subject property. And then the trees in question are identified here as trees 14, 15, 16, and 17. So in January of 2021, Dr. Tom Kimmerer submitted for Planning Commission consideration and also the Urban Foresters consideration a tree inventory report. and that included all of the noted trees here, which are labeled up to, I think, 24. But trees 14, 15, 16, and 17 were the ones identified for protection. And again, those were noted all as either, all as southern red oaks between 35 and 44 inches in size. So the Planning Commission approved this development plan earlier this spring, March 14th, and you might remember there was quite a bit of discussion led by Ms. Galt about parking, replacing what had been open space as presented in an earlier development plan. And then as we zoom in, the location of those trees, again, are kind of in the back of the development here between the townhouses. There was an open space proposed to, again, this is on the plan that was approved in March to protect those four trees. And they're noted with a tree protection fence. And then this is the tree protection notes supplied with that final development plan, which again do include the four red oaks and indicating that they would be saving those for a canopy of 8,300 square feet. So what happened was, again, the red oaks were removed in the field without the urban forester's permission, but also not consistent with the tree protection plan that the commission had approved. So Article 26 of our zoning ordinance does regulate tree protection standards or establishes those standards. So once a tree protection plan is approved by the Planning Commission, the urban forester does have a small bit of wiggle room to make field adjustments. But that is only for 5% of the required canopy, and this far exceeds that standard. So I would also note Article 26 identifies the requirements associated with tree protection during construction, that they are fenced and maintained during the construction period. What we, I guess, what the staff is asking for today is for the Planning Commission to reapprove this plan with the consideration of a mitigation plan that the applicant and the urban forester have agreed on. And so this is the plan that they have submitted for this meeting, and it's not colored, but we're going to zoom in. This is the area where the trees were removed, and you can see two new trees have been identified. They're hickories. One is going to be removed and one is going to be saved. And then the four trees that were already removed have been identified, and it now says existing trees removed. but the statistics have been updated to include all six trees and then noting that those trees will be removed. And they have worked with the urban forester to establish a mitigation plan to address those trees. So at this point I would ask the urban forester and the engineer to come up and really address the issue, but also ultimately for the Planning Commission to reapprove this plan with two new conditions. First, to update the purpose of amendment to address these changes to the tree protection plan and make sure all the site statistics are referenced to the mitigation plan. And then, of course, this is contingent on the Planning Commission accepting their mitigation plan at this point. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Question from Commissioner Nichol. Could you please put it back on the approved development plan that shows the one that we just saw that showed the close up. So what we're looking at here is none of the buildings have moved in any way. There's been no accrued development of floor area ratio or buildable square footage or anything in my eyes that looked like it. it could have had any other motive to increase the density of the overall project. So what I'm trying to say is everything stays the same except for the unfortunate removal of four trees. So the site statistics need to provide a remedy for the destruction of the four trees. But the buildings themselves, none of that is going to change is what I'm trying to make. Only those improvements that were already considered by the commission in March. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Mrs. Worth? Sure. And again, this just shows that they're removing them. So I think the applicant and the urban forester can address what's the mitigation plan. All right. Now we'll hear from the applicant and the urban forester. And I think for those of us who are not on the subdivision committee applicant, if you could give us just kind of a brief chronological series of events. What happened? When did it happen? You speaking to me, sir? Either, but probably the applicant. Okay, sure. How we got here today, just very briefly, please. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Jihad Hallani with Vision Engineering. So just chronological historic review. So basically, first thing we did when we submit for the zone change, we asked Dr. Kimmer to come and take a look at the trees, identify what's considered as significant trees, and which tree is healthy, which not is not healthy, which one needs to be protected. And based on that report, we can outline our intention, as you can see in the open space area. These are the four trees that we like to protect. Part of the Dr. Kimmer report did exclude the two hickory trees that have been identified later on after the first final development plan was approved. So, the original report outlined the four trees, the red oak tree, T1 to T4, and later on T5 and T6 can outline in the field by the urban forester. So during the development plan, as part of the zone change, we kind of committed to the neighbors that we're going to create some buffer around the property with landscaping, especially around the commercial area to kind of buffer the backyard. So the first development plan gets approved. We get the grading permit on that development plan. We did not show, and this is my fault, the tree protection area for engineering to kind of identify the areas that need to be protected. And as part of the grading, so this area where the four trees are, there's significant change in elevation. So basically the change in elevation is going to be 5 to 7, 8 feet in difference in elevation. So basically we have to fill approximately 7 feet in average around these trees. So in order to do that, I mean, there's always a way to kind of get you somewhere. So we had to put a retaining wall of 7 feet tall, ranging in height from 5 to 7, with railing around it, and then steps into somebody to kind of get to it. And this is where basically the big mistake happened, is that we said, okay, we have so much excess trees, so we can remove these trees. And that's me who made that call. So basically the trees got removed. And the reason behind it is that basically if we come and develop that site, we turn it to the homeowner association. and you have a retaining wall of six, seven feet tall, with raining, and these trees in the future die because they're going to die because of the amount of material is going to change. The hydrology is going to change. A lot of things is going to change in that area. So we're leaving seven feet tall into the ground within the development with a retaining wall and fences around it for somebody else to take care of it, to clean the trees, remove them, the dead trees, and what they're going to do is a hole in the middle of the development. So as part of this requirement, part of this project right now, which is again, hence 2020, I should have came and talked to Urban Forester and we came up with a mitigation plan. So we presented a mitigation plan basically saying in the removal of these five trees, which is the four trees because of the grading, and the last T5 tree is because of their sanitary sewer line, and we are tying to the sanitary source, so it has to be basically removed just because the amount of excavation is going to be close proximity to the trunk of that tree. So we propose to kind of add approximately an average 116 trees in addition to what's required. In R3 zone, you're required to have 30% canopy, and in B3 zone, you're required to have 20% canopy. So what we're proposing is almost 86,000 additional tree canopies, and then that equivalent to 116 trees. So we're losing five trees. We are proposing to have 116 trees. I understand that they're going to grow from zero right now, small area to large area, but in a few years they're going to be significant trees. And so basically, that's the summary of what's happened from the day we apply for the zone change to where we're at right now. Thank you. At this point, do we have any questions? Commissioner Nickel. Mr. Haney, I got a question about the species of trees that are going to replace the four, I think that they were red oak trees that have been removed. What is the species that's going to replace the tree canopy that was lost? The species we were recommending for these four trees, we're proposing 14 different kinds of oak trees, plus there's different species that are going to be submitted as required by what has been approved by the city, by LFUCG, is that they're going to be the same species, what's approved, allowed by the city. Okay, so 84 oak trees, different species of oak trees, is that correct? No, 14 of different oak trees. 14 different oak trees and then the balance of that which would be 70 of an additional species. Would be 102. 102, okay, thank you. And we'll certainly get into that with the urban foresters report. All right, any other questions again at this point? All right, thank you. Thank you. Urban Forester, we're happy to hear from you if you'd like. Eric Sutherland, Urban Forester, Division of Environmental Services. From my perspective, I'm new on the job since September of 2023. This was one of the first plans that came across my desk. I did a site visit in November and discovered there were more than four significant trees on the site. In addition to the two hickories that I discovered that you can see on the plan that we're actually going to be able to save one, there were 10 pin oak trees on the site that were 30 plus inch in diameter. I saw them in the fall, so it was impossible to tell whether those were in decline or not. As a certified arborist who has lots of experience with Penn Oaks, they were probably in some state of decline. There was also a 46-inch white ash on the property that appeared to be in fairly good shape. And then there were a couple that were identified in Dr. Kimmerer's report that were in decline, as we would expect with emerald ash borer. So my, you know, from my perspective, the tree inventory was insufficient. And the tree protection plan was insufficient because according to Article 26, they're supposed to provide justification for removals of any tree that's deemed significant. So there were at least 14 significant trees on the site. Again I'm not sure what the previous urban forester had discussions with and what was presented to him, but the information that I had led me to request a site visit with a representative from Vision Engineering at the technical review committee. I never heard from them. So I put comments in Accela for the technical review committee review, and those things were never added to the development plan. And so being very busy with what I do, I discovered that there was some activity on the site, and I had never heard from this company and it was massive land disturbance. And according to regulations, I'm supposed to be notified before the disturbance permit is issued to make sure that tree protection is actually installed on site. Obviously there was land disturbance going on. I had not been notified. So my director and I were actually out trying to mitigate a street tree issue in the same area we pulled up into the lot and over the rise and the trees were gone and so of course we were disappointed and shocked and as tree care professionals disappointed that we had lost four really beautiful southern red oak trees that were slated to be protected so I reported it immediately to the division of planning and that led to a series of meetings to figure out a strategy that led to a meeting with Mr. Helani and my director and my supervisor Heather Wilson who's city arborist and we were looking for mitigation based upon 100 square feet per tree instead of the 750 square feet that article 26 allows when you're doing a development plan and so we were asking for 83 trees as as a mitigation in addition to the protection of the hickory trees that had been identified on my site visit let's just say that that meeting didn't work out the way we hoped it would and didn't hear back from them until I guess last week and Mr. Helani presented a plan that would protect at the time the two hickory trees and would add 116 large species trees. To me that was a win and a losing situation because that was actually 33 more trees on site. Their current, we won't know the exact species, we asked them to put a note, so there's an additional note on the new plan, I think it's note number six, that specifically says that a mitigation plan has been approved by Division of Environmental Services. The landscape plans, which usually don't come to me, I have asked our landscape reviewer to notify me when this plan comes in because we want to have a hand in what the species selection is on site. Because what we want to do is make sure that what goes back will be a very diverse forest of trees and that hopefully way down the road, they won't be significant soon, but future generations of lexintonians will be able to look at the site and see a lot of trees i will note that those trees as currently proposed won't be in the residential area that's where those trees removed but they were they're compensating for those on the business side of the property apparently that's where they have room to do so and so we were wanting to keep those trees on site and so that was uh... seemed to be a good plan for us uh... as he mentioned as tracy mentioned i had not signed off on the plan uh... as of today i have signed off on the old plan with these new conditions that were presented to me uh... that you will see on the new plan which has the updated statistics and also the tree protection note i will just say that unfortunately uh... after we decided to try and protect the two hickory trees as you can see the sanitary sewer line goes right through the root zone of the one closest to uh... where the sanitary is tying in so we won't be able to say that tree but we what we are gonna preserve the the remaining and uh... get 116 trees in addition to their required canopy coverage. Thank you. Do we have any, at this point, do we have any questions? Yes, sir, Mr. McClure. I can't really see the development plan because we're still stuck on the voting, but my recollection was that in that commercial area they were really maximizing parking as much as they could. Typically those smaller planting areas, all that impervious surface limits the future size and growth potential of trees, not that they're not important to plant in that parking area. Right. Do you feel that the areas they proposed or are going to propose are going to be able to mature and establish themselves? So it appears that most of those are going to be perimeter trees around the parking structures. Obviously, Robin, as a plant person yourself, you know that it's going to be difficult. There's been massive landscape change there. It's not going to be the same as if we could have had a nice protection zone around that, but hopefully with the extra amount of trees that we've been able to agree upon, you know we definitely want to have our hand in this process to see it through since it is a mitigation process and so i will i will have sign off on trees planted on the streets and and if they if they aren't planted correctly then i will follow up on that but it's clearly not the same as an open area that it once was with lots of better soils and not compacted, et cetera. Yeah, I guess I'm imagining what I'm seeing go in right now on the parking lot at the Herald-Leader building that Fayette County Public Schools is doing and the fill, shall we say, rock with a little bit of clay that is where the tree islands are is, you know, the concern that I have by moving it into that commercial area, I guess. Yes. You know, I, like I said, typically landscape plans don't show up on my desk because it's not a requirement. you would hope that all construction activity is done before the trees are installed. And that's what I expect. That's what our department expects. Because then you don't have the residual damage from dumping materials. As far as capital projects go, things are improving. We've been pushing for that for a while. In the wake of this scenario that happened, I've actually had two capital projects show up on my desk. and that's beneficial because one was at jacobson park and we had issues with tree protection being set up correctly there and we caught it and the other is the phoenix park remodel and it just makes sense to have tree professionals involved in city projects that's what we desire that's what we hope the planning commission desires and we hope that that's what the other departments in our government desire because we can make sure that we do the right things from the get-go and we protect what's there. The situation that you mentioned over here at the Herald-Leader building, that was before I got here, and it is kind of a disaster over there what's happened. But tree protection should be set up around those trees that were remaining, and I don't know what that plan looked like, but that would be the expectation. Thank you. Yep. This is a comment and then a question maybe beyond this particular plan. For those of you who are not in this subdivision committee meeting, I will tell you, it's my recollection, the various times we looked at that plan, we had a lot of conversations about saving the maximum number of trees. And we found it really distressing to see those trees gone when we saw this the other day. we heard a comment and i'm i'm using my own language here but what i heard was it was going to be too challenging more expensive to build the retaining wall to protect the trees and besides that the trees would probably die anyway which from my perspective is not an adequate justification for not following the tree protection plan that's number one agree and number two, and this is the request for help, we talked about environmental economics and the fact that we seem to have the notion that we can take these big trees down, and if we plant a bunch more little trees, that's an equal, that's an equivalent, and they're not. And we need some help with the environmental equation of how much protection we lose from those big trees going down and how many years it's going to take for those smaller trees to give us what we're losing when the big trees come down in terms of air quality, water quality, all of that kind of stuff. And I'm assuming there are places that you can help us find that would get some figures that would help us look at those costs and rethink what we're doing here in terms of when we let the big trees go down. So thank you, Ms. Worth. As you are aware, we are currently going through the ZODA process because we have to have better tree protection standards that are modern. And in that are mitigation factors. And I agree with you. You know, the places that we'd like to visit, right, that have established tree canopies within residential zones, within business zones, it can happen. I was in Oxford, England this summer. They have massive 400, 500-year-old trees in the urban environment, and it's all about changing our perspective on how we go about looking at these trees. From my perspective, let's try to be creative and challenge our design professionals to build around what's there. Now, as we talked about in several public meetings with the Zoda process, it's unreasonable to think that we're going to save every single tree. However, that should be the goal, and we should start from that goal and then work backwards, because the environmental utilities that four gigantic trees are providing, as you said, the shading, the cooling effect, the wildlife, the stormwater uptake, etc., is not going to be replaced by two-inch caliper trees on site. So that is the quandary. The better situation is to preserve as many trees as we can on these development plans. The unfortunate circumstance here is that we try to mitigate it and get the maximum mitigation we can get. So final question, I think you've said this. You're accepting this at whatever you see in terms of the final plan, as you understand it right now, the plan for mitigation is acceptable to you. It's not what you'd like to have, but it is acceptable to you. Do you see the tree list? We can't put back those trees in the ground. So, you know, what should have happened, and it states that clearly in Article 26, is that any issues that arise on the site, they should contact me, and then we can have that discussion then. So if there was an issue with trying to save those trees, and I think Mr. Helani understands that now, it would have been a simple phone call. We meet on site and we could talk about what we could do, and then we don't end up here. You know, the reason that I asked for a special note to be put on the plan is so that when the landscape plan is submitted, we can make sure we will see then the exact locations of the trees and the species proposed, and we want to help with that. Okay. I think, you know, as we're looking at an unfortunate incident, however it may have occurred, there has been a mitigation plan put in place. And from your experience, you're saying that they have met the mitigation plan. One thing we may want to consider as a group, as we're dealing with more and more difficult parcels of property, trying to provide housing units and trying to provide business-oriented activities in our community, that in this situation, luckily the mitigation, the applicant exceeded the mitigation plan. So they were able to exceed the mitigation plan. So as we move forward, we may want to make our mitigation plan more robust. Because we do want to save all the trees. But if we are unable to meet our community's needs, a greater maybe bumping up the mitigation requirements is something that we should consider moving forward. Understanding we're not replacing different caliper sizes of trees, but getting the quantities bumped up like this applicant was able to do on their own. Could be something that helps us to provide needed housing and more trees. So that's a comment. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for having me. I hope you come back often. It sounds like from your thoughts that really and truly these trees could have been saved. Not knowing what the site problem that arose was because I wasn't contacted, you know, yes, I mean, I don't see why, you know, from the plans that I had seen, it appeared feasible. But as I said, there's been massive grade changes out there. It was kind of a, you know, a bluegrass kind of swooping landscape. I understand. But, you know, the thing is, they were shown and should have stayed. They were shown on the plan, they should have stayed. Yes. unless they got some sort of mediation from us in the meantime. Agreed. You mentioned two other things. You mentioned the hickory trees, that one of them probably would have to come down because of sanitary sewer. If that's the line, it looks like the sanitary sewer line is going underneath both of them. No? Yes? It's close. Can the sanitary sewer line be moved? Well, you would have to ask Mr. Helani that. That was our first. Well, I've got a couple of other questions for you first. Okay, that was our first reply was, you know, what are the other options? Well, much like the four red oak trees, you know, we thought that they were being built around and was going to stay too. Right. you you mentioned it sound like you mentioned that with the mitigation plan and support that the replacement trees were born elsewhere besides the residential area shouldn't the residential area trees as well uh... well if it and i guess you can't see the uh... updated plan that they are meeting they are meeting uh... and exceeding by hair the required land uh... tree canopy coverage in the residential area yeah i think they've required fifty six and change thousand and i think he's providing fifty seven but sound like moment of you you were saying most of the trees that they were putting in report elsewhere besides the resident the mitigation canopy is moving to the i guess that would be the south side of the lives toward harrisburg road on that here there's there's a new plan i think that i'm sorry that's the new plan okay it's all black and white i cannot tell what yeah it's it's hard to see without a zoom function. Is there a way to zoom in on this? No. Okay. I would definitely love to see a plan that's, I'm sorry, colorized to show what's, what we're talking about, what is new now. You know, particularly from here. Did you bring anything like that? So yes, I think that. Yeah, but you know the thing is there's none of us here. We need to, we need. I'm seeing a lot of trees here and you know I don't know what's new and what's owned and what's new. and what's owed and what's mitigated. So those are what he proposed, and that's all on the commercial side. Okay. So here's the residential, and you can ask him questions about why he chose to put all the mitigation trees on the business side. from my understanding there was more green space on the business side than there is on a residential lot because standards, you know, they have to put a certain amount of street trees in. They're already having trouble squeezing those in along the streets. And then do we put those on a residential lot that the homeowner could buy the house and cut them down? I think the better mitigation would be putting them in the business zone where we have oversight over that moving forward. So if those trees disappear on the business side, then our landscape reviewer can enforce that. So, you know, I'm not sure maybe you can address spaces in that residential zone, but I don't see that there's a lot of spaces for 116 trees in that residential zone. I'm not saying 116. Maybe he could knock a few off and put them in there. Again, if there aren't green spaces in there already and they're just individual lots, then I don't see how those trees kind of disappear because we don't have any oversight over private property. Okay. Once again, thanks for being here. Thank you. A couple of questions as far as, I guess, for the staff and so forth as much as anything. One, you know, this isn't the first time we've had this discussion, but I seem to think that haven't we talked about fines and penalties in the past? Are there any fines and penalties for stuff like this when it occurs? Sure. If you want to. Or Tracy. I don't care. Either Tracy. There are, but they are not significant in our ordinance. And, you know, the goal really is more to try to provide some form of mitigation and get some kind of tree, knowing that it's not going to replace what was taken down immediately. but hopefully that it's going to put something back in the future. But there are some provisions that will be coming to you in the new ZODA that will address some different kinds of fines and penalties, but we are somewhat limited by KRS on how much of that we can do. Okay. Well, somehow we've got to get the attention before these trees simply accidentally get bulldozed or intentionally get bulldozed saying, well, it's just not worth the effort. And, you know, that's what I'm seeing here, unfortunately. The other question I had are, I'm sorry, what is your name? Yeah. Eric Sutherland. I'll remember it, Eric. No, that's okay. I'll remember it. He mentioned something that he saw the mitigation plan this morning and signed off on it. So, you know, isn't there language that revised plans got to be turned in 48 hours prior to hearings and so forth? Yes. This is something we received this morning as well. We knew that our staff knew that Division of Environmental Services and Mr. Helani were conversing about a mitigation plan, but we were not part of that particular detailed conversation, hoping that the two of them. But my question would be, shouldn't this thing have been turned in 48 hours prior to be able to really be considered today? Yeah, this is really sort of outside of our normal filing. an application since the staff referred it to the commission for consideration based on Mr. Sutherland saying he would not sign off on it because the trees were gone. So we really do need a re-approval and consideration of the mitigation plan. It doesn't have to be today. You can postpone it two weeks if you need to. Okay, do we have any other questions from the commission for either Ms. Wade or Mr. Sutherland or Mr. Halani? Seeing none, thank you. Is there anyone from, I guess we would have public comment, yes, anyone from the public that would like to speak on this application? Seeing none, is there any commissioner comment? commissioner uh poll and then nickel okay mr poe you go first then just real quick uh having been uh having worked as a design professional for most of my adult life i'll just say that there's nothing that you can't design around and if you care about trees as a designer you can make You can preserve them. You can make things work. And so it's frustrating when you see situations like this where other priorities were put before preservation of the trees, regardless of what regulations were in force. I just wanted to put that out there. I concur with that statement, but as I'm looking at this as a mitigation plan, as I've reviewed the development plan and seeing that there was no, or as I've reviewed the plan and now that I see that, and it was agreed on by the urban forester, that the mitigation plan has exceeded what was required. I think that that should be a precedent that we should expect to see moving forward, that if something like this does happen, that the guilty party or the applicant would then do their best to exceed the mitigation plan. And I believe that we've seen that that's what they've done. so if anybody else like would make a statement or i can make a motion either one i have a feeling we'll have more comment from commissioners absolutely but if you're or if you're wrapped up let's just wrapped up thank you b mrs worth did you miss worth did you have anything really a clarification urban forester mentioned a note on the plan that would require consultation with him does that need to be built into this or the fact that the note is on the plan now that it requires the ongoing consultation adequate it's not up there that was So the note will say the additional 116 large trees replanted are required as compensatory mitigation by the Division of Environmental Services for the removal of significant trees. The species and the planting locations of the additional trees shall be shown on the landscape plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the urban forester prior to acceptance of the landscape plan. So we can add that as additional? This is the note that they've already added to the plan. I think that addresses it. It does not need to be added as a condition, it's already a note on the plan. Yes. Ms. Mickler? Well, I kind of want to second a little bit of what Mike said here. I appreciate that the applicant is working with our urban forester to come up with a mitigation plan. I think that the plan that we have before us was turned in in the 11th hour. There aren't the graphics to present it. And while I appreciate that the number of trees that they're planting to mitigate the loss, I see no coherence in where they're located. They're sort of in an engineering style just dotted, crammed in along the commercial areas. I think that given the severity of the ignoring the tree protection plan, a lot more thought has to go into this mitigation plan. And if I'm going to vote on it today, I would not support it. I would much prefer to see it postponed and a lot more effort go into the plan before it comes back to us. Second. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Mickler and Davis. Mr. Owens. Seeing no other comment, my own personal comment is I agree. I can't, I've not been able to see, we can't look at it up here, so I would be comfortable postponing it as well. All that said, any further discussion or a motion? Mr. Owens. I guess since I've been so vocal about this, my motion would be to move to postpone this for two weeks until plan. Continue. Thank you. Continue. My motion would be for continuance of plan MJDP 23-76 Shriners Hospital Masonic Temple. Second. or I could say two weeks. Let's do two weeks, yeah. So that would be, is that July 11th? No, it's June 27th. June 27th, I just tried to give away two weeks. Okay, June 27th. So motion to continue to the June 27th meeting made by Mr. Owen, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion to that motion? If not, we're just going to go ahead and vote. All righty, that motion carries with one no. thank you next item like suppose would be miss wade or well before we move to um kind of wrapping up this afternoon i'll remind um the chair that we had an item on the consent agenda and we sort of gave mr roland the opportunity to see if he could get us a an affidavit and i think he is probably just going to plan to come back in a month okay so if we can postpone um item a on page two PLN FRP 2419 for Lee Thomas Mills estate and that's for property at 200 Harp Ennis Road. Okay this would I'm sorry did you say this is a one month? Without he kind of left us so I'm assuming a month would be sufficient to post the sign. Okay all right. July 11th then. Do we have a motion? Move to postpone pln frp 2419 for till july 11th yes thank you commissioner poell seconded by commissioner worth without objection or without any discussion we'll we can vote and um i am i guess i'm going to abstain because i have a professional relationship with that applicant is it abstention the correct one trees okay so sorry so that carries seven with one abstention mr chair yes sir mr owens uh if i may one clean up i guess uh i don't think i missed it on the uh crestwood montessori school it was on the consent agenda uh we acted on that with the consent agenda and in the packet afterwards i noticed there is uh there was one objection that i think wasn't mentioned that i think we should at least acknowledge that was from a mr joshua ruggles uh being concerned about the expansion there i suppose is that a question for ms jones well we we regularly put those types of things in your packet and so So the assumption is that you have seen them and you have read them and that whatever consideration you have for that would be addressed at the time you take your vote. I would just simply think with that being on the consent agenda that it should be noted at that time. And, I mean, as I've always done, I've gone off the consent agenda that Paula sent and the agenda that she sent out yesterday or the day before. And I don't always have time to get through these at that time. At the very least, it should be recognized that there is an objection as we move forward on those things. That's what I'm saying. All right. Just a thought. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Is there any other discussion from the commission before we go to Mr. Duncan? I would just say, is there a way to put that in the minutes so that we reflect that concern in the minutes? Your concern? Yeah, I would think so. Yes? Mr. Wilson, do you have anything? Okay. Okay. Anything else from anyone? Otherwise, we will give the floor to Mr. Duncan. Do you have anything? Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. We were continuing to work even up until lunchtime today to see if we had an agenda for the Planning Commission work session next week, and we have concluded that we do not. So we would recommend that you cancel the work session on June the 20th, which was scheduled for 1.30 in the Phoenix Building. You will also remember just earlier on your nominating committee information, it stated that there will be a report out at the Planning Commission work session. So in consultation with the Department of Law, we believe that you can also, if you're canceling that meeting, also say that the report out for the nominating committee will be at the Planning Commission public hearing on June the 27th. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. So could that be one motion, Tracy, or two? It can be one motion. One, okay. And just for clarification, report out, the voting is still first week before and second week. Yes, you'll continue to follow the bylaws. The vote out will be, the vote will be on July the 11th. Thank you. So we don't, we are off next week. All right. So we can lump all that into one motion if someone would be kind enough to make it. Or if there's any discussion, we can hear it. Commissioner Worth? Mr. Chair, I move that we cancel the work session scheduled for June 20th, is that correct? And that the report from the nominating committee be heard at the public hearing on June 27th. Good. All righty. Thank you for that. Do we have a second from Commissioner Barksdale? Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, so we will put that to a vote. Mr. Chair, if I could just make one administrative note, the government will be closed on Wednesday, June 19th, next week for Juneteenth. So we will be in the office Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, however, if you need us. Thank you. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor, and it was seconded. I suppose we need to vote on that. Correct? that's okay that's all right who seconded commissioner barksdale okay mr wilson can i trouble you for your vote could i trouble you for your vote thank you all righty if we are all finished thank you all very much not too bad We're adjourned without objection.