# Planning Commission Meeting - August 11, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 11, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2130 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2130?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-08-11 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 6,788 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on August 11, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Chair presided over the meeting, which included 12 agenda items and resulted in 10 motions and votes. The Commission heard 5 public comments during the session. The meeting covered a range of planning and administrative matters. Key actions included approval of the previous meeting's minutes, consideration of postponements or withdrawals, and approval of consent agenda items. The Commission approved discussion items, performance bonds and letters of credit, and ZOTA 2011-8, an amendment to authorize changes in permitting and enforcement functions. The Commission also voted to cancel the August work session. Informational items presented during the meeting included the call to order, staff items, audience items, and notification of next meeting dates. The meeting concluded with adjournment. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 11, 2011: - Mike Cravens - Mike Owens - Marie Copeland - Ms. Beatty - Ms. Phillips - Mr. Wilson - Mr. King - Mr. Salley - Mr. Newman - Mr. Keeley - Jimmy Emmons - Barbara Rackers - Traci Wade - Captain Charles Bowen - Debbie Barnett - Rochelle Boland - Bill Sallee - Cheryl Gallt - Chris Taylor - Denice Bullock - Steve - Carla Blanton No attendees were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included ten votes, all of which passed by voice vote. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 00:09:14] The consent agenda items were approved, including Plan 2011-80F, Plan 2011-84F, DP 2011-67, DP 2011-68, DP 2011-74, and DP 2010-26 extension. The motion was made by Mr. Chairman and seconded by Ms. Beatty. **Gess Property Plans** Three related plans for the Gess Property were approved: - Plan 2005-269F: Gess Property (Chilesburg) Unit 2-D [timestamp: 00:35:25] was approved with an 11th condition to monitor USGS data with regard to runoff. Motion by Mr. Commissioner, seconded by Mr. Owens. - Plan 2006-220F: Gess Property Unit 2-E [timestamp: 00:35:56] was approved with 10 stated conditions. Motion by Mr. Commissioner, seconded by Ms. Beatty. - Plan 2006-221F: Gess Property Unit 2-F [timestamp: 00:36:30] was approved with 10 stated conditions. Motion by Mr. Commissioner, seconded by Mr. Owens. - Plan 2006-222F: Gess Property Unit 2-G [timestamp: 00:36:30] was approved with 10 stated conditions. Motion by Mr. Commissioner, seconded by Ms. Beatty. **ZOTA 2011-8** [timestamp: 00:43:46] An amendment to authorize changes in permitting and enforcement functions to the Division of Planning and to create a Zoning Compliance Permit was approved. Motion by Ms. Chair, seconded by Ms. Phillips. **Administrative Actions** - Cancellation of August Work Session [timestamp: 00:44:50] was approved. Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Carla Blanton. **Postponements** Three items were postponed to future dates: - Plan 2011-81F: Riddell Plaza (AMD) [timestamp: 00:03:51] postponed until September 8, 2011. Motion by Ms. Chair, seconded by Ms. Phillips. - DP 2011-62: Riddell Plaza, Lots 1 & 4 [timestamp: 00:05:02] postponed until September 8, 2011. Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Ms. Phillips. - Plan 2011-73F: Derby Landing [timestamp: 00:06:20] postponed until August 25, 2011. Motion by Ms. Chair, seconded by Mr. Wilson. ## Public Comment **Marie Copeland** raised concerns about walkability and sustainability in the Gess Property development [timestamp: 00:22:19]. She noted that the area lacks walkable destinations such as grocery stores, libraries, churches, and gas stations. Copeland questioned whether the development is truly sustainable or simply a collection of subdivisions without community centers or retail options. Copeland also addressed community center zoning and development [timestamp: 00:23:29]. While acknowledging that the area has zoning designated for a community center, she pointed out that no development has occurred and questioned how to make such areas attractive for future use. **Mr. Commissioner** offered remarks on zoning and implementation gaps [timestamp: 00:50:33], noting that despite zoning for mixed-use and community centers, neither private nor public entities have stepped forward to develop them. He identified this as a significant gap between planning and implementation. Mr. Commissioner also suggested that the comprehensive plan should include mechanisms to allow for zoning changes to support walkable, sustainable neighborhoods, particularly in areas like Gess Property [timestamp: 00:47:03]. Additionally, Mr. Commissioner stressed the importance of getting land use planning right the first time to avoid the need for retrofits and NIMBY opposition later [timestamp: 00:53:22]. ## Contested Items **Walkability and Community Development in Gess Property** A heated discussion emerged regarding the lack of retail, parks, and community facilities in the Gess Property development. Commissioners and public speakers debated the significant gap between the property's zoning designation for mixed-use development and community centers, and what had actually been implemented on the ground. The core disagreement centered on whether the development was meeting its intended purpose of creating a walkable, vibrant community space. Participants raised concerns that despite zoning that explicitly called for mixed-use development and community facilities, these elements were absent from the actual project. This disconnect between planning documents and real-world development outcomes became the focal point of contention during the meeting. The discussion involved both commissioners and members of the public who spoke to the issue, indicating broad stakeholder concern about the property's development trajectory and whether it was serving community needs as originally envisioned. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by the Chair [timestamp: 00:00]. No discussion occurred during this agenda item. ## Approval of Minutes The meeting proceeded to approve minutes from two previous sessions. Minutes from the June 23, 2011, meeting and the July 14, 2011, meeting were presented for approval [timestamp: 00:02:00]. Mr. Chair and Ms. Beatty were the key speakers on this agenda item. No discussion or debate took place regarding the minutes. The minutes were approved by voice vote without any concerns raised or amendments proposed. **Outcome:** Both sets of minutes were approved. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:03:06] Three items were postponed during this agenda item: - **Plan 2011-81F** – postponed to September 8, 2011 - **DP 2011-62** – postponed to August 25, 2011 - **Plan 2011-73F** – postponed to August 25, 2011 The key speakers on this item included Mr. Chair, Ms. Chair, Mr. Wilson, and Ms. Phillips. All three postponement motions passed by voice vote. ## Consent Agenda / No Discussion Items [timestamp: 00:06:58] Six items were approved on the consent agenda without discussion. The approved items were: - Plan 2011-80F - Plan 2011-84F - DP 2011-67 - DP 2011-68 - DP 2011-74 - DP 2010-26 extension Mr. Chairman and Ms. Beatty presided over this portion of the meeting. All six items passed by voice vote. ## Discussion Items Four final record plans related to Gess Property Unit 2 were discussed during this agenda item. The plans under review were identified as 2005-269F, 2006-220F, 2006-221F, and 2006-222F. [timestamp: 00:12:25] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Newman, Mr. Keeley, Marie Copeland, Mr. Commissioner, and Mr. King. **Concerns Raised** Several concerns were raised during the discussion of these record plans: - Walkability issues were identified as a concern - Sustainability considerations were questioned - The lack of community facilities was noted as a deficiency **Outcome** All four final record plans were approved, though approval was conditional upon addressing the concerns raised during the discussion. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit Staff presented information regarding the release and call of bonds during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:10:55]. Mr. Chair presided over the discussion. The presentation resulted in a motion that passed by voice vote. The outcome was approved. ## ZOTA 2011-8: Amendment to Authorize Changes in Permitting and Enforcement Functions [timestamp: 00:37:44] Staff presented a proposed amendment to reorganize zoning enforcement responsibilities and establish a new permitting process. The amendment would transfer zoning enforcement functions from Building Inspection to Planning and create a Zoning Compliance Permit. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The presentation and discussion involved Mr. King, Ms. Beatty, Mr. Wilson, and Ms. Phillips. The focus of deliberation centered on two primary considerations: improving operational efficiency and ensuring consistency in zoning enforcement practices. **Outcome** The amendment passed by voice vote, approving the proposed changes to permitting and enforcement functions. ## Cancellation of August Work Session A motion to cancel the August 18, 2011, work session was presented during this meeting. The item was discussed by Mr. Wilson and Carla Blanton. [timestamp: 00:44:19] The motion was approved by voice vote. ## Staff Items No staff items were presented during this portion of the meeting. ## Audience Items [timestamp: 00:22:19] During the audience items portion of the meeting, several members of the public provided comments regarding the Gess Property area. The discussion focused on concerns about the lack of walkable destinations and community facilities in that location. **Key Speakers and Comments** Marie Copeland and Mr. King were among those who spoke during this segment, along with input from Mr. Commissioner. **Issues Raised** The public comments centered on three main areas of concern: - The absence of walkable destinations within the Gess Property area - Limited community facilities available to residents and users of the property - Gaps between zoning regulations and their actual implementation **Discussion Focus** The conversation addressed the relationship between zoning designations and the practical development outcomes in the area, with particular attention to how current zoning may not be translating into the creation of accessible community amenities and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. **Outcome** This agenda item was classified as informational in nature, meaning the comments were received and noted for the record rather than resulting in an immediate decision or action item. ## Next Meeting Dates The next meeting dates were announced during this agenda item. A work session is scheduled for August 18, 2011. ## Adjournment A motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:56:07]. Mr. Chairman presided over the adjournment procedure. The motion was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of consent agenda items including Plan 2011-80F, Plan 2011-84F, DP 2011-67, DP 2011-68, DP 2011-74, and DP 2010-26 extension - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2005-269F: Gess Property (Chilesburg) Unit 2-D with 11th condition to monitor USGS data on runoff - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2006-220F: Gess Property Unit 2-E with 10 stated conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2006-221F: Gess Property Unit 2-F with 10 stated conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Plan 2006-222F: Gess Property Unit 2-G with 10 stated conditions - **ZOTA 2011-8** — passed: Amendment to authorize changes in permitting and enforcement functions to the Division of Planning and to create a Zoning Compliance Permit - **Motion** — passed: Cancellation of August Work Session - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Plan 2011-81F: Riddell Plaza (AMD) until September 8, 2011 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of DP 2011-62: Riddell Plaza, Lots 1 & 4 until September 8, 2011 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Plan 2011-73F: Derby Landing until August 25, 2011 --- ## Full transcript The ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. I'd like to call the meeting to order, please. We'll start out with approval of the minutes. Mr. Chair, are you ready for a motion? I'm ready. I'll move for approval of the minutes from June 23, 2011 and July 14, 2011, minutes as written. Thank you. We have a motion for approval and second by Ms. Beatty. All in favor, vote electronically. Motion carries. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I have two items I'd like to postpone. The first one is on page 2. Item C, it's Plan 2011-81F Rydell Plaza. Request a one-month postponement to September 8th. Okay, is there anyone here in the audience who should speak to that? Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion. I move that we accept the postponement for Plan 2011-81F Rydell Plaza until September 8th of 2011. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Beatty and second by Ms. Phillips. Vote when you can. It's coming up. There you go. Okay, thank you. Motion carries. And on page 4, this is under development plans, DP 2011-62, Rydell Plaza, lots 1 and 4. This is the development plan that accompanies the plat we just postponed. I would request a one-month postponement on this DP until September 8th as well. Okay. Anyone here speak against that? Seeing none, we'll take a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement of DP 2011-62 for one month until September the 8th. Second. Okay. I have a motion for postponement and second by Ms. Phillips. Everybody vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if there are no more postponements from the audience, the staff did receive a request to postpone. The first item on your agenda on page 1, item A, Plan 2011-73F, Derby Landing, the applicant is requesting a two-week postponement to your August 25th meeting in two weeks. weeks, the staff supports this request and is recommending the postponement. Mayor Mrakas- Okay. Is anyone here to speak to that? Okay. Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Ms. Chair, I move that we accept the staff's request to postpone Plan 2011-73F until August 25th. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Wilson to postpone. Everybody vote. Thank you. Thank you. Any others? Okay. I guess next would be our consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, a number of your remaining agenda items do qualify for consideration at this time for your consent agenda. The first here is on page 1, item B of your meeting agenda, Plan 2011-80F, Guest Property Unit 1. This is for property located at 400 and 480 Childsburg Road. Another final subdivision plan is on page 2, item D of your meeting agenda, Plan 2011-84F, Denton Farm, Unit 3, Section A, amended. This subdivision is also known as the Ellerslie at DeLong. This involves property at 122 Summerslie Place. In addition, there are three final development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that are on your consent agenda. The first is page 4, item B, DP 2011-67, an amended final development plan for Locust Hill Shopping Center, out lot 7. This involves property at 3043 Richmond Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, DP 2011-68, an amended final development plan for Druid Hills Subdivision, lot 6, also known as First Security National Bank and Trust Company property, located at 1260 Winchester Road. Another development plan on your consent agenda is Item E on page 5, BP 2011-74, an amended plan for James Motor Company and Catherine McBrayer property, located at 2440 Richmond Road and 2350 Lake Park Road. There is one final item on your consent agenda. This is a plan recommended for a one-year extension by your subdivision committee. It is on page 5, item D of your meeting agenda, DP 2010-26, an amended final development plan for Griffin Gate Office Park. This is property at 1460 Newtown Pike. At this time, unless there's anyone on the commission or in the audience that would like a further discussion of these plans, these six items can be considered for approval at this time on your consent agenda. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here that wish to have a wish to see any of these plans, either in the public or the Commission? Okay. If not, the Chair will entertain a motion for approval. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we approve the consent agenda as provided to us by staff. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Beatty. Everybody vote when you can. The motion carries. Okay. Next, I guess we'll get into the presentation of Plans we have left there are four final record plants that are left the staff for proposed They're all related the staff was will do one presentation for the final four Things on your agenda if you'll give us just a moment to set up there. It'll take us a little bit to set it up here Okay, very good While they're setting up, let's do the release and call of bonds. Mr. Chair, I'll move further approval of the release and call of bonds, as stated. on the memorandum dated August 11, 2011. Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Owens, a second by Ms. Phillips. Everybody vote when you can. There you go. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. final record plans that are all requested for a one-year extension for the guest property. On your agenda that's at the bottom of page 2, Plan 2005-269F. Over on page 3, you have Plan 2006-220F, 221F, and 222F. These are all for the guest unit 2 properties. And can we zoom out a little bit more on the... That's good enough. Unit 2, to orient everyone for where these final record plants are, we have Hayes Boulevard running from Todd's Road to Richmond Road. The bulk of the guest property is shown here. This is the Jacobson Park. Unit 1, which was on your consent agenda, is located right in this corner of the guest property. And Unit 2 is for this area here. In particular, we put up the final development plan for Unit 2. 2A, B, C are already recorded. ask for the one-year extension that's requested for D, E, F, and G. We've tried to put the final record plats up in their general geographic location on this. So we've got D, E, F, and G for the subject properties. As you can see on these properties, some of these plats are scratched out. and leaving, in most cases, leaving just greenway plots on there. That's because during the course of over the past year, the applicant has recorded these plots in sections. They are asking for a one-year extension on this in order to record the remaining sections of development. For Unit 2E, the only thing that's left to record on that is the open space and greenway lot. The same can be said for Unit 2F. Unit 2G, which is most near the retention basin, Unit 2G would be this area here right next to the retention basin. For Unit 2G, they have the open space lot and two of their residential lots. And then Unit 2D has the bulk of the remaining residential lots that have not been recorded, along with the street system and some greenway property for that. As you can see on your agenda, all of these plans have been in front of the Planning Commission for multiple times. Their original approval were in 2005 and 2006, respectively. The last time that these plans were in front of the Commission was just a year ago, on August 12, 2010. That's part of the reason why they're one-year extensions rather than re-approval because these plans are still valid today. They'll expire two days from now at the end of August 12th. The staff is recommending approval of the one-year extension for all four of these plats. The only thing to draw your attention to would be on item 2D. That's the plat that has most of the residential lots left. When the Planning Commission originally approved that, they also had as a part of their motion of approval that the USGS data would be monitored in regard to runoff. The staff is simply recommending that that be cleaned up and out of the motion for approval and as an actual condition of approval for this final record plan. So the staff is recommending approval of an 11th condition for item 2D, recommending approval of the one-year extensions as originally approved for the remaining plans. If you have any questions for me, I would be happy to try and answer them. Otherwise, I know that the applicant is here, and you can also answer any questions that you have. Do you want to say anything, applicant? I'm in agreement. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to these? Anybody? Okay. Commission, do you have any? Yeah, go ahead. Jimmy, thanks, one, for presenting this in a fairly simple and clear type manner. I guess I guess my question would primarily be with 2005-269F, which is Unit 2D, that has a retention basin on it. As far as there is a sign-off there, as far as environmentally sensitive areas, I believe. Yes. Yes. We have both the environmental planners sign off for the environmentally sensitive areas and the urban county engineers approval for normal storm drainage floodplain information. I would presume obviously would take care of any consent to decree orders or water quality permits or anything like that that would now be needed? Yes, sir. As a part of the normal course of development as it would with any other final record plan. Okay. And then we were discussing earlier, it appears that there's been some repair work done on this track. Can you explain that? We did receive an email from Mr. Hillard, and someone had noticed that there was some repair work being done at the retention basin that's partially in the guest property. The – it's our understanding that there was – noticed some possible need for repairs on there. Ball Holmes had contacted a structural engineer and followed their recommendations in doing those repairs on the basin. And there was also contact with the Army Corps of Engineers, and they determined that they don't need to do a permit for the work that was being done for that. If you have any other questions on that, Mr. Newman might be able to answer. I've got the, you know, the Cliff Notes version of that. For me, the Cliff Notes version will suffice. Just wanted to clarify it for sure. Thank you. Maybe you can or cannot answer this. What kind of repair work was being done? I mean, did the basin fail? Did the walls of the basin collapse? Either Rory or Hillard would probably be able to answer that. I don't think it was anything catastrophic or anything. I think during a normal course of inspection, they noticed that things weren't exactly like they thought it would be, and so they're just going in and repairing work. I think some of the grouting around one of the pipes was coming loose, so water was going around the pipe instead of through the pipe, so they were fixing that. That's my understanding of the issue. Oh, Steve is here, not Mr. Newman. So the repair work involved grouting of pipes? I don't know exactly what the repair work involved to repair it, but I understand it was just fairly normal maintenance once it was done. Did it involve moving any soil? I don't have an answer to that. Yeah, I wonder if Mr. Keeley would know. I do have the cliff notes. There was some settlement over the last joint of pipe in the outlet pipe system. They exposed it, poured concrete, grouted the top of the pipe, and covered it back up. Does that require any kind of sedimentation approval or was that all? No? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything you have? I plan to vote for it, so that's okay. but i do have serious questions and maybe you can help me if you use the model of southland as a neighborhood where you've got walkable walkability uh... walking to things churches schools shopping parks et cetera i don't see that up there i see a greenway But I don't see groceries. I don't see a library. I don't see any churches. I don't see any gas stations. And I see a subdivision, and that's a lot different, or multiple subdivisions. That's a lot different from a neighborhood. So as we go forward in the comprehensive plan, and we want to have walkability and sustainability, et cetera, Like Derek says, we've got to have places to walk to, not just connect, but have destinations. We may have to retrofit some neighborhoods or expand the uses in that neighborhood. And we may need to have goals that have some teeth in them rather than just say we're going to be green and sustainable. So am I wrong? Are there Southland-type components to what we see here? MR. There would be potential for that with the community center zoning that is there, but it's nothing that's built there today. MS. Where is that? MR. There we go. There we go. Hayes Boulevard, the CC area is right here. Can we scooch it to center the CC area just a little bit? Or other scooch? That's a very technical planning term there. Scooch. The scooch at Iowa. Learned that in college. The Hayes Boulevard, the area that we're talking about is right here. The CC zoned area is right here at the confluence of three drainage ways. You've got the large three-fingered pond that comes down through this greenway. You've got a greenway that comes down through here and a pond. And then there's a drainage way that comes down through here. And all of those, the confluence of that, that area is zoned CC. There's about six and a half acres of CC zoned property that's about six acres that's developable. On our last plan for guest unit eight, about two-thirds of that were approved for residential apartment buildings. So what's left right now is a two-acre vacant CC land there that's, as of right now, the staff, there are no approved plans for that. That could become a commercial site and could become a gathering spot. So that's roughly two-thirds the size of Centerpoint green space. I don't know. Green Center Point looks to me like three or four acres at the most. How much is Center Point? Well, my ballpark guess, I could be way out of line, but I know it's way under five. And probably closer to three. But what's the distance? Where does a half mile come down Hayes Boulevard? Because you usually think of walking within a half mile to get a bag of groceries. In walking places like Europe. It's probably down to the next green light. This map is not to any scale, but just from my general guess, So a half-mile radius from that point would probably be out to about the bend in Hayes Boulevard, so a circle. I like that would be a half-mile, would be my guess. Well, we have our – It's probably about as good as the center point guess there. What would Mr. Designer say? Where would a half-mile radius go? Me? Uh-huh. Other than getting out the drawings and the scales, I have no idea. I guess I certainly wasn't ready for this. This is basically the last piece of the guest property we have to be developed. Plans were all approved. We were just here for re-approval of what's already done. I gave you my assurance I'm voting for it. I'm just trying to say we have a problem. We say we want to be walkable and sustainable, but then we build subdivisions rather than neighborhoods, and we have a problem all outside of New Circle Road. That's it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Anything else on this? I just want to extend them a year. Yes. All right. Well, the chair will take a motion on these. I guess let's just do them individually. I have a question before we, a motion. Just for clarification from my understanding, when a development plan is brought back to us that has been extended, or we've gone a while, we've started to develop it and we wait and then we come back. That's what this one sounds like has occurred. Do the developers now fall under the new guidelines, if there are new guidelines? And I'm sort of trying to understand exactly because I really appreciate what Marie is saying, And I'm trying to figure out, you know, if we do an extension and if they come back and ask for another extension, at what point do we or can we go back and ask that some of these things comply with the vision, the overall vision? That's a difficult question to answer in general because you have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis. But the reason why plans have a one year from the time it was approved to have it certified is in case that there are regulatory changes. You are able to re-review things under new regulatory changes. In all cases, with all re-approvals and extensions, the staff does evaluate if there's been any regulatory changes that would have an effect on just re-approving it. and there have not been in this particular case. But sometimes you do have to look on a case-by-case basis on how much of a vested right the applicant has got, how much infrastructure have they actually put into the ground. You have to look at each one on a case-by-case basis in order to make that determination. But that is the reason why the ordinance has time limits in it, so that we can review that and look at those particulars with any re-approvals or extension requests. Did that answer your question? Well, for instance, this first one, E, they've added, went back and added a condition. Yes, the staff felt it was appropriate to move it out of just the motion for approval and make it a condition of approval. Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman? Yes, ma'am. My expert education person next to me just told me that it takes 10 acres to have a library. There's no library place out there in your community center unless we put it on the second floor of the gas station. So it's not that this is wrong necessarily. It's a start. And maybe we need to build flexible ways to adapt to need. As needs appear in these outlying subdivisions and they want to become walkable, sustainable neighborhoods, maybe we need to figure out a way for zoning to be attractive or we bait the right things into those places by how our comprehensive plan is written. Ms. Copeland, if I could address your comment. There has been a group of staff members that have been working probably close to about 18 months now on the general issue that you've raised today. And we anticipate that as you progress with your conference of plan next year, you will probably be seeing some of their recommendations come forth about these community center areas, not just in the expansion area but all through town. They are still working and still progressing and do not have a final product to share with the commission yet, But we anticipate maybe by this time next year there would be something that would be ripe for folding into the conference a plan to try and address some of the issues you've raised today. I can also agree that those are important issues, and I just want to comment that, again, it comes down to what is permissive versus what is directive. And we have no ability, for instance, to direct the public library system to put a library at any given location, And they are also not subject to zoning, so they could go in those locations as well. And we did consult with them during the planning for this area and even talked to them about becoming a part of the exaction program for the expansion area. And they said they did not want to and did not see that since they had their own revenue stream and they have their own criteria under which they choose library locations, and they did not foresee one in this area despite the growth. Similar thing with churches. We had allowance for all the transition area and the CC area would be allowed to have churches, yet no church chose to try to locate in this area. We've had no church applications, and again, we cannot direct or force a church to locate in a certain location. So to some degree, we all know and agree exactly with what you're saying, And that was part of the vision for this area when the master plan was done for the expansion area to allow areas for that and to use the greenway system as the walkability connector for those types of things. But unfortunately, we've seen no great interest from the retail community at putting shopping where they had myriad opportunities. They did not go there. Likewise with churches. and also when we worked with the schools in terms of trying to get them to centrally locate in a community center concept, they found that their needs dictated that they went into this neighborhood, but they went in different directions away from the community center. But again, these are the kinds of things that we are talking about and seeing how can we influence those either other public agency that we don't control or private sector decisions to help make sure that we do have walkable, sustainable neighborhoods. Okay. I'm still waiting for a motion after we had a little comp plan discussion. Mr. Commissioner, I'll make a motion for the acceptance of Plan 2005-26F Guest Property Unit 2D with the 11 conditions, the 11th being what Jimmy said it was earlier. I couldn't write it down fast enough. It's on the agenda. Got it. I'm looking at the old one. All right. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Owens. Everybody vote when they can. Okay, let's go to the next plan. Make a motion for approval of Plan 2006-220F, Guest Property Unit 2E, with the 10 stated conditions. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? I have a second by Ms. Beatty. Everybody vote. All right. The next plan, please. Make a motion for approval of Plan 2006-221F, Guest Property Unit 2F, with the 10 stated conditions. Okay, we have a motion for approval. We have a second. Second. Second by Mr. Owens. Everybody vote. All right. One more. Might as well finish it off. Yeah. Make a motion for approval of Plan 2006-222F Guest Property Unit 2G with the 10 stated conditions. Okay. We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Beatty. Everybody vote. All right. Those motions are carried. Thank you. Is that all of our development plans? All of them. So next we have a commission item, staff item, I guess. Good afternoon. This is on page 6 of your agenda, and it's item A, the only one of the items under Commission items today. It's ZODA 2011-8, and it is to authorize changes between building inspection and planning with regard to permitting and enforcement and to create a zoning compliance permit. And I have a letter of support here from Fayette Alliance that I'd like to circulate. This is the text amendment that Chris has presented to you all at the last two work sessions. And there are three things that have formed the basis of this initiation. One was in June 2009, the council created an ad hoc committee called the Building Inspection Task Force, and their job was to study, do a comprehensive study of all of building inspections, activities and functions. And they made several recommendations. They found a lot of things problematic and a lot of things have been addressed already. This is one of the things that is to be addressed though. And then the mayor's transition team discussed a reorganization of the government and discussed changes as far as making the operation of the government more efficient and more effective. And then Mr. Maloney, who is our chief administrative officer, was formerly the commissioner of the State Department of Housing, Buildings, and Construction, and he had some input onto this because of his, or due to his experience as the commissioner. And one of the recommendations, like I said, Building Inspection Task Force, he had several recommendations. One of them was to separate administration and enforcement of the zoning ordinance and building codes. For years and years and years, from the beginning of time probably, that we've had any kind of enforcement, this has been part of building inspections responsibility. And they recommended that we separate these out into two divisions. And so what we are going to do is have building code enforcement be through building inspection and zoning ordinance, which deals with land use, be part of planning. The overall goal is to address the issues that the task force found problematic, and hopefully this will make the operation of the government more efficient, more effective as far as permitting goes, and more customer-friendly, and it will make the interpretation of the zoning ordinance and enforcement more consistent. And as I said, the primary change is to transfer responsibility from building inspection to planning as far as enforcement of the zoning ordinance. And building inspection will continue to do building code enforcement and administration, and they will still administer permits and do the enforcement as far as paving, fences, pools, signs, and single-family and two-family residential structures. And then we will do the enforcement of anything that has to do with land use. Part of this is to create a zoning compliance permit, and that will be issued by planning prior to any issuance of a permit for construction by building inspection for anything other than single and two-family residences and the other things that I just mentioned. It will have to do with anything that is governed by a development plan, any structures that are governed by a development plan, and any change of use in a property. And it will also be a prerequisite for a certificate of occupancy to be issued for anything other than a single-family residence or a two-family residence. All of these changes are designed to provide better management and oversight of the regulatory process. Those were the major changes. And then we have a couple of minor changes that are part of this, too, but they're not anything that are going to affect anything other than definitions or descriptions of things. One is to Article 7, which is the Board of Adjustment article, and that has a reference to the Division of Planning being part of the Department of Administrative Services. We are not anymore, and that's been changed several times over the years because of reorganization of the government or changes in the administration. And just to make things easier, we're taking that reference out and just saying that the Division of Planning is part of the Lexington-Feo-Durman County government. So we're just deleting that reference to the Department of Administrative Services. And then there are two articles, Article 13 and Article 27, which Historic Preservation is Article 13, courthouse area overlay zone is Article 27, and they reference the Division of Housing Maintenance, and that no longer exists. That's the Division of Code Enforcement, so we're changing that to make that correct. We presented this at the Zoning Committee last week, and it was recommended for approval, and the staff recommends approval for the four reasons that are listed on your agenda and on your staff report. If you have any questions about anything in the staff report, I'd be glad to try to answer them, and Mr. King is here to answer any questions about process if you have any. Okay, any questions about this? Yep, good. I'm seeing. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this? What'd you do? Oh, I didn't know you were here. Okay. Okay. And single families out of this, right? Yes. Okay. Single family and two families. Just keep that on the record, fresh on the record. All right. Chair was ready for a motion. Ms. Chair, I move that we accept and move forward ZOTA 2011-8, the amendment to authorize changes in permitting and enforcement functions to the Division of Planning and to create a zoning compliance permit. Second. Okay. We have a motion for approval and we have a second by Ms. Phillips and we have a second by Mr. Wilson. Everybody vote when they can. Looks like that motion barely passes. Thank you very much. Okay. Is that all of our agenda? We have one more Commission item, Mr. Chairman, on the addendum. I think this may be the easiest request we've made of you in some time. In looking over the activities that staff has and things pending, pending and given all the hard work that you've done on all of these text amendments and on the goals and objectives recently, we find ourselves with nothing. We really need to have you have a work session about next Thursday. So we would request that you give yourself a one-week holiday. Okay. Can we have a motion to, a motion by Mr. Wilson, I figured that. We have a second. Second by Carla Blanton. Everybody vote when they can. Very good. That motion passes. Anything else? Okay. Yes. I would just like to say that there was no place for children to play softball, soccer, swimming pool, lacrosse, walk your dog in a park. Well, you could walk it down the Greenway, but there was no organized picnic facility, playground kind of equipment place in the guest's property. That doesn't happen in a CC area. There's a 20-acre school site up there. What? It's not within walking distance. It's not a hub. It's near Jacobson Park. You can get there by the greenway. But everybody's using Jacobson Park as their escape hatch for not building a park. Okay. Mr. Chair, may I please? You may. I guess since we've had such a light agenda and finished early, everybody's talking. or at least maybe that's my excuse for adding to this. Just following up with what Marie has said, obviously what we saw today as far as planning is kind of after the fact because we're reapproving stuff that was kind of set in motion and for the most part nailed down five, six, seven, eight years ago. However, as has been mentioned over the next year, I think we do have the opportunity to possibly look at some of these items and hopefully get ahead of the curve in the fact that if we're going to have these type of facilities or won't these type of facilities to attract people to walk and stay and enjoy their neighborhood without having to drive a mile or two miles or whatever to get to a convenience store or to a library or a park or whatever they want. This is what we should be looking at in the next year. I know of some of the CC land, this being one of them, and to date none of them really and truly have been touched. And this one, if anything ever gets built there, the whole community, I think, is going to be built out before they even start on the CC land, which is going to be limited. If I heard Jimmy right, there's six acres that's there and only maybe like two acres that's actually developed. That's going to be difficult to attract people, to have enough stuff there to really attract people. A year ago or so, we moved some CC land to the corner of the interstate, Manowar, and Polo Club Boulevard. So it's isolated in itself now, instead of being in the center where it would attract people to walk to and so forth. But the only thing I'm saying is, you know, keep it in mind. and as we go forward over the next year, you know, really give these things some consideration and see if we can make it a little bit better as far as walkability and sustainability is concerned. So that's my two cents worth. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I think those are great goals, but if I heard Mr. King correctly, we've created some land and no one's taken us up on the offer. Mr. Salley, is the staff also considering what can we do to make retail or make land more attractive to people? Because we can make all the plans and mandates we want, but we can't force somebody to come in and open up a store there. So is the staff also looking at how can we make this more attractive? Yes. Well, that's a great answer. It's a safe answer. I've not been in those meetings. So I can't speak to all the details of the components they've been looking at, but I know they've been working hard. Can I say something? Yeah. Didn't we miss our chance last year when we approved the apartment buildings on that six-acre tract? Remember, we had all the folks who came and were opposed to the apartments. And so we had our opportunity at that point, but we were presented with a development plan. And when you're presented with a development plan, you're kind of back to backs up against the wall. And, you know, what do you do at that point? Because they are ministerial and you cannot disapprove it because you think there should be a different use. So we had our opportunity to do something and we failed. OK, Carla. But I guess the other question is how long do we make somebody hold their land vacant? I mean, you know, we don't know if they've marketed it or what they've done to try and move that land into the purposes that we would like them to. But, I mean, I think there comes a point at which we can't hold that land vacant forever. I mean, I don't think that's fair either. So I don't know what the balance is, but I hope that we would be mindful of that as well. Well, those plans were baked in that cake a long, long time ago about the apartments. And then the neighbors came in and spoke against any kind of convenience store or anything down there. They didn't want it. They had one drawn there, proposed. Remember that? And the neighbors objected to that. They didn't want that. And as far as all those greenways, you're not allowed to do anything in those greenways. You're not allowed to mow them or knock the trees down or even get in them, I don't guess. People do mow them, but they're not supposed to. So there's reasons for everything, I guess. Yes, but we could have had somewhere out there a park, a park, a neighborhood park, a tot lot playground. So you don't think the school is a park? I mean, I went by the other day. We were showing a house out there, and there was a soccer thing. There was basketball. The school was way up the road there. The school's right in the middle, right beside this CC. And there was a major amount of playground and vacant land. No, I wouldn't take my three-year-old to the school to play on the equipment. If there were equipment there. There is equipment there. There's even a miniature park there of some kind. I was just up there. I live out there. The items that are in Central to Southland, they are adjacent to a school, but they aren't at the school. The items that are adjacent in Woodland Park are not at Cassidy School down the road. people don't take their children, their little children, to Cassidy School to play. Mr. Chairman. People run the track, but that's about it. Okay. It seems like a lot of discussion keeps coming back to the fact that it was zoned. If I'm correct, only six acres was zoned something that's not residential or school. I mean, it is what it was zoned years and years ago. I mean, I think Mike's comment about it, you know, the cake was baked. It may be, but, you know, again, it was, you know, at the very end we're saying, oh, with that last little bit, we could have done differently. But, you know, it was zoned over the years in a very residential way. And I guess it goes back to the way we've done our land use planning. And that's why I think it's very important as we're coming up with this comp plan. How do we avoid making something that's 95% residential in the future? without some of those other issues, along with some of the things that Bill confirmed they're deciding on, which are how to make those things more attractive. Or how do we retrofit? How do we go in and have an easy basis for somebody changing the zoning to a need-based zone based on some metric scoring system or something where we can justify changing two residential corner lots to a gas station or a fast food mart or whatever we want to do. But there's got to be a way to say this meets with our comprehensive plan. I don't know how to do that. But it seems to me like when there becomes a need, we ought to have a way to go to the comprehensive plan and back it up. It sounds like we're all in the same sort of agreement. It's how do we avoid these issues in the future. My preference is to not have to retrofit but to do it the first time, because I think trying to go back and tell people, hey, let's put a gas station in here, that's a big NIMBY that people are going to scream about. Whereas if it's done in the first place, we see this with trails and everything else. People yell about trails when they try to do them after the fact. If they're their first time, they love them. I'd be glad at some point, I don't think today is the day, to give you all the background. This was probably as planned a piece of land as ever in the history of Lexington. When the expansionary was done and this land was included in the expansionary master plan, this room was set up basically in arena style with hundreds of people who participated, along with two or three of the leading land use design firms in the country involved in the overall master planning of the guest land and all of the expansion area, both for parks, for residential, for greenway, for commercial, for mixed housing. And it's an interesting story on how the plan and the visions are and how implementation occurs in different ways. and I'd be glad to share some of that story with you sometimes, having lived through it, if you're interested. Okay. Now we've had this mini-work session. We had to at least get an hour in, didn't we? We couldn't just adjourn that quick. Yeah. Everybody put down an hour for this. Okay, can we have a motion to adjourn? Okay, we have a motion for adjournment. Motion carries. You don't care, I know. Adventure a highway in the sunshine. Where the days are longer, the nights are stronger than moonshine. You're gonna go, I know. Cause the free wind is blowing through your hair And the days surround your daylight there Seasons crying, no despair Alligator lizards in the air In the air Wishing on a falling star Waiting for the early train Sorry boy, but I've been hit by a purple rain Aw, come on