# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - January 17, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · January 17, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/332 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/332?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-01-17 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 2, 2026 - **Length**: 7,675 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on January 17, 2008, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding as chair. The commission addressed 24 agenda items during the session, taking 24 motions and votes throughout the meeting. No public comments were heard during this session. The commission's work focused primarily on subdivision approvals and administrative matters. Five items were postponed, including developments such as Sand Lake & Estes Property, Tuscany Unit 5, Kingston Hall Unit 2, The Glen at Lochdale Unit 4, and an Allen R. Foster appeal. The majority of the meeting involved approving various subdivision plats and development plans, with 14 subdivision-related approvals granted for projects including Sunny Slope units, National Subdivision lots, Covey Ridge Development, Meadow Oaks, and several other residential and commercial developments. The commission also handled several administrative and policy matters. They approved the initiation of two text amendments - one concerning extended-stay hotels in the P-1 zone and another related to the PUD-1 zone. The meeting concluded with organizational business, including the election of officers and delegation of the secretary's duties. Additionally, the commission addressed the release and call of various development bonds as part of their routine oversight responsibilities. ## Attendance The Commission meeting on January 17, 2008 had nine members present and two members absent. **Present:** • Randall Vaughn • Ed Holmes • Carolyn Richardson • Joan Whitman • James Mahan • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Mike Cravens • Lyle Aten (arrived late) • Neill Day **Absent:** • Linda Godfrey • Frank Penn **Late Arrival:** • Lyle Aten The meeting proceeded with a quorum of nine commissioners in attendance out of the total eleven-member commission. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission conducted 24 votes during the January 17, 2008 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously by voice vote. **Administrative Items** The meeting began with approval of minutes from August 9, 2007 and November 8, 2007, motioned by James Mahan and seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 00:00]. The Commission also approved the release and call of bonds listed on the January 17, 2008 memorandum [timestamp: 38:00]. **Postponements** Five development cases were postponed to future meetings: - DP 2007-134 (Sand Lake & Estes Property) postponed to February 28, 2008 [timestamp: 02:00] - PLAN 2007-52P (Tuscany, Unit 5) postponed to February 14, 2008 [timestamp: 04:00] - DP 2007-100 (Kingston Hall, Unit 2) postponed to March 13, 2008 [timestamp: 06:00] - ZDP 2007-111 (The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4) postponed to February 14, 2008 [timestamp: 08:00] - BOAR 2007-3 (Allen R. Foster appeal) postponed to February 14, 2008 [timestamp: 10:00] **Development Approvals** The Commission approved 13 development projects, all subject to staff conditions: - PLAN 2008-3P (Sunny Slope, Unit 3) [timestamp: 12:00] - PLAN 2006-148F (Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-B reapproval) [timestamp: 14:00] - DP 2007-153 (National Subdivision, Unit 1, Lots 5-10) with condition 13 deleted [timestamp: 16:00] - DP 2007-138 (Covey Ridge Development Company, Lot 5) [timestamp: 18:00] - DP 2008-01 (Meadow Oaks) with an additional condition [timestamp: 20:00] - DP 2008-02 (Bluegrass Business Park, Pemberton Farm, Lot 3A) with 8 votes (Randall Vaughn abstained) [timestamp: 22:00] - PLAN 2008-2P (Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9) [timestamp: 24:00] - DP 2008-7 (Boston Road Development, Lots 4 and 5) [timestamp: 26:00] - DP 2008-03 (NDC Property, Unit 1A, Wellington Lot 11, Unit 3) [timestamp: 28:00] - PLAN 2006-251F (Lakepointe Subdivision, Block B, Lot 1 reapproval) with a 10th condition added [timestamp: 30:00] - DP 2008-6 (The Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust) [timestamp: 32:00] - PLAN 2007-61F (Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 1B waiver approval) [timestamp: 34:00] - DP 2007-155 (Eastland Parkway Church of God, Lot 2) with condition 24 deleted and condition 23 modified [timestamp: 36:00] **Text Amendments and Officer Elections** The Commission initiated two text amendments: one for extended-stay hotels in the P-1 zone [timestamp: 40:00] and another to the PUD-1 zone [timestamp: 42:00]. They accepted the nominating committee's report for officers [timestamp: 44:00] and delegated the secretary's duties to the Director of Division of Planning [timestamp: 46:00]. ## Appointments The Commission made several key leadership appointments during the January 17, 2008 meeting, establishing the organizational structure for the upcoming term. The following appointments were made: • **Randall Vaughn** was appointed as Chairperson • **Linda Godfrey** was appointed as Vice Chairperson • **Frank Penn** was appointed as Secretary • **Mike Cravens** was appointed as Parliamentarian These appointments establish the core leadership roles necessary for the Commission's operations, with each position carrying specific responsibilities for meeting management and organizational oversight. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The Commission reviewed and approved minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under consideration were from the meetings held on August 9, 2007, and November 8, 2007. Key speakers during this discussion included James Mahan and Joan Whitman, who participated in the review process of the meeting records. The Commission completed their review of both sets of minutes and formally approved them without any noted objections or required amendments. This approval ensures that the official records of the August 9, 2007, and November 8, 2007, meetings are now part of the Commission's permanent documentation. The approval of these minutes represents standard procedural business for the Commission, allowing them to maintain accurate records of their previous deliberations and decisions. ## Postponement of Sand Lake & Estes Property [timestamp: 02:00] The Commission addressed agenda item DP 2007-134 regarding the Sand Lake & Estes Property during the January 17, 2008 meeting. Rena Wiseman spoke on behalf of this item, which was scheduled for discussion at this session. Due to scheduling conflicts that prevented proper consideration of the matter, the Commission decided to postpone the Sand Lake & Estes Property item. The discussion was brief, focusing primarily on the procedural need to reschedule rather than the substantive details of the development proposal. The item was officially postponed to the February 28, 2008 Commission meeting, allowing additional time for proper review and consideration of the property matter. No further details about the specific nature of the Sand Lake & Estes Property development or the reasons for the scheduling conflicts were discussed during this portion of the meeting. ## Postponement of Tuscany, Unit 5 [timestamp: 04:00] The Commission addressed agenda item PLAN 2007-52P regarding the postponement of Tuscany, Unit 5. Rory Kahly presented the matter to the Commission. The Tuscany, Unit 5 plan was postponed to the February 14, 2008, meeting at the request of the applicant. No further discussion or debate occurred regarding this agenda item, as it was a procedural matter involving rescheduling rather than substantive review of the development proposal. The Commission accepted the applicant's request for postponement, and the item was moved to the February 14, 2008, meeting agenda for future consideration. ## Postponement of Kingston Hall, Unit 2 [timestamp: 06:00] The Commission addressed agenda item DP 2007-100, concerning the postponement of Kingston Hall, Unit 2. Rory Kahly spoke regarding this matter during the meeting. The Kingston Hall, Unit 2 development plan was postponed to the March 13, 2008, Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. No further discussion or debate occurred on the merits of the project during this meeting, as the item was handled as a procedural postponement request. The Commission approved the postponement, allowing the applicant additional time before the plan would be reviewed and considered for approval. ## Postponement of The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 [timestamp: 08:00] The Commission considered agenda item ZDP 2007-111 regarding The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 development plan. Rory Kahly addressed the Commission during the discussion of this item. The primary matter before the Commission was a request from the applicant to postpone consideration of The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 plan. Rather than proceeding with the scheduled review and discussion of the development proposal, the applicant sought additional time to prepare their presentation or address outstanding issues. The Commission agreed to the applicant's postponement request. The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 plan was rescheduled for consideration at the Commission's February 14, 2008, meeting. This postponement allows the applicant additional time to refine their proposal or gather necessary documentation before presenting to the Commission. No substantive discussion of the development plan's merits, design details, or potential impacts occurred during this meeting, as the focus was solely on accommodating the applicant's scheduling request. The postponement ensures that when the item does come before the Commission in February, both the applicant and Commission members will have adequate time for thorough preparation and review of the proposal. ## Postponement of Allen R. Foster appeal [timestamp: 10:00] The Commission addressed agenda item BOAR 2007-3 regarding the postponement of Allen R. Foster's appeal. The item was handled as a procedural matter with minimal discussion. The Commission voted to postpone Allen R. Foster's appeal to the February 14, 2008, meeting. No specific details were provided regarding the nature of Foster's appeal or the reasons for the postponement during this portion of the meeting. The postponement was approved without recorded debate or opposition from Commission members. ## Approval of Sunny Slope, Unit 3 and a portion of Unit 1 [timestamp: 12:00] The Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2008-3P regarding the approval of Sunny Slope, Unit 3 and a portion of Unit 1. Jerry VanderWier served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the plan to the Commission for consideration. The Commission reviewed the proposed development plan for Sunny Slope, which encompassed Unit 3 in its entirety as well as a portion of Unit 1. Staff had prepared a set of conditions for the approval of this development plan. Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission voted to approve the Sunny Slope, Unit 3 and a portion of Unit 1 plan. The approval was granted with the conditions as listed and recommended by staff. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available materials, but the Commission accepted staff's recommendations in full as part of their approval decision. ## Reapproval of Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-B [timestamp: 14:00] The Commission considered the reapproval of Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-B under plan identifier PLAN 2006-148F. Jerry VanderWier presented the item to the Commission for consideration. The staff recommended reapproval of the Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-B development plan with the same conditions that were previously established. The reapproval process allows for the continuation of a previously approved development plan that may have required additional time for implementation or had its approval period expire. The Commission approved the reapproval of Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-B with the previous conditions as recommended by staff. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this item. ## Approval of National Subdivision, Unit 1, Lots 5-10 [timestamp: 16:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2007-153 for the approval of National Subdivision, Unit 1, Lots 5-10. Jason Banks served as the key speaker presenting this subdivision plan to the Commission. The staff had prepared a set of conditions for approval of the subdivision plan. During the discussion, the Commission reviewed these recommended conditions and made modifications to the staff's original proposal. The Commission ultimately approved the National Subdivision, Unit 1, Lots 5-10 plan with the staff-recommended conditions, with one notable change: condition number 13 was deleted from the final approval. The specific content of the deleted condition and the reasoning behind its removal were not detailed in the available materials. **Outcome:** The subdivision plan was approved with conditions as modified by the Commission. ## Approval of Covey Ridge Development Company, Lot 5 [timestamp: 18:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2007-138, the Approval of Covey Ridge Development Company, Lot 5 development plan. John Kingston served as the key speaker presenting information on this development proposal. The Commission reviewed the development plan for Lot 5 within the Covey Ridge Development Company project. Staff had prepared a recommendation that included specific conditions to be met as part of the approval process. Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission voted to approve the Covey Ridge Development Company, Lot 5 plan. The approval was granted with conditions as outlined by staff in their recommendation. The development plan approval allows Covey Ridge Development Company to proceed with their proposed development on Lot 5, subject to meeting all the conditions specified by staff during the review process. ## Approval of Meadow Oaks [timestamp: 20:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-01 for the approval of Meadow Oaks development plan. Tony Barrett served as the key speaker presenting information on this development proposal. The Commission reviewed the Meadow Oaks plan and the conditions recommended by staff for approval. During the discussion, the Commission determined that an additional condition beyond those initially proposed by staff should be added to the approval. The Commission ultimately approved the Meadow Oaks development plan with the staff-recommended conditions plus the newly added condition. The specific details of the staff conditions and the additional condition added by the Commission were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The approval of DP 2008-01 allows the Meadow Oaks development to proceed under the established conditions set forth by staff and the Commission. ## Approval of Bluegrass Business Park, Pemberton Farm, Lot 3A [timestamp: 22:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-02, the approval of Bluegrass Business Park, Pemberton Farm, Lot 3A development plan. Chris Howard served as the key speaker presenting this item to the Commission. The development plan for Lot 3A within the Bluegrass Business Park at Pemberton Farm was reviewed by staff and brought before the Commission for approval. The proposal underwent the standard review process, with staff providing their analysis and recommendations for the project. Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission voted to approve the Bluegrass Business Park, Pemberton Farm, Lot 3A development plan. The approval was granted with conditions as specified by staff in their review. These conditions were incorporated as part of the approval to ensure the development meets all applicable standards and requirements. The approval of this development plan allows the project to move forward within the established parameters and conditions set forth by the planning staff and adopted by the Commission. ## Approval of Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9 [timestamp: 24:00] The Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2008-2P for the approval of Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9. Brad Tune served as the key speaker presenting this subdivision plan to the Commission. The discussion centered on a subdivision proposal for two specific lots within the Calumet Terrace development. Staff had reviewed the proposal and prepared a list of conditions that would need to be met for approval. Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission voted to approve the Calumet Terrace Subdivision plan for Lots 8 and 9. The approval was granted with the conditions as outlined by staff, ensuring that the development would meet all necessary requirements and standards. The approval allows the subdivision to move forward with the development of these two lots within the Calumet Terrace area, subject to compliance with the specified conditions established during the review process. ## Approval of Boston Road Development, Lots 4 and 5 [timestamp: 26:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-7, the Boston Road Development plan for Lots 4 and 5. John Napora served as the key speaker presenting this development proposal to the Commission. The development plan underwent review and discussion by Commission members, with staff having prepared a set of conditions for approval. While the specific details of the proposed development and the conditions were not elaborated in the available materials, the item proceeded through the standard review process for development plans. Following the presentation and any discussion that occurred, the Commission voted to approve the Boston Road Development, Lots 4 and 5 plan. The approval was granted with the conditions as outlined by staff, ensuring that the development would meet the necessary requirements and standards. The approval of DP 2008-7 allows the Boston Road Development for Lots 4 and 5 to move forward in the development process, subject to compliance with the staff-recommended conditions that were incorporated into the approval. ## Approval of NDC Property, Unit 1A, Wellington Lot 11, Unit 3 [timestamp: 28:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-03, the approval of NDC Property, Unit 1A, Wellington Lot 11, Unit 3. Richard Murphy presented the item to the Commission for review. The development plan was presented with staff recommendations that included specific conditions for approval. The Commission reviewed the proposed development and the conditions outlined by staff for the NDC Property project. Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission voted to approve the NDC Property, Unit 1A, Wellington Lot 11, Unit 3 plan with the conditions as listed by staff. The approval was granted as recommended, allowing the development to proceed under the specified requirements. ## Reapproval of Lakepointe Subdivision, Block B, Lot 1 [timestamp: 30:00] The Commission considered PLAN 2006-251F for the reapproval of Lakepointe Subdivision, Block B, Lot 1. Rory Kahly presented the item to the Commission. The subdivision plan required reapproval as part of the standard review process. Staff had prepared a set of conditions for approval that were presented to the Commission for consideration. During the discussion, the Commission determined that an additional condition should be added to the staff's recommended conditions. The Commission approved the reapproval with the original conditions as listed by staff, plus the addition of a 10th condition. The Commission voted to approve PLAN 2006-251F for the reapproval of Lakepointe Subdivision, Block B, Lot 1 with all conditions as modified during the meeting. ## Approval of The Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust [timestamp: 32:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-6, the approval of The Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust development plan. Rory Kahly served as the key speaker presenting this item to the Commission. The Commission reviewed the trust's development proposal and the conditions recommended by staff for approval. Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission voted to approve The Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust plan with the conditions as outlined by staff. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting materials, but the Commission's decision to approve the plan with staff-recommended conditions indicates that any concerns or requirements identified during the review process were addressed through these stipulations. The approval allows The Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust to proceed with their development plans in accordance with the established conditions and applicable regulations. ## Approval of waiver for Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 1B [timestamp: 34:00] The Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2007-61F, which involved approval of a waiver for the Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 1B development plan. The item was presented to the Commission for discussion and approval. Based on the available information, the waiver request related to specific development standards or requirements for Unit 1B of the Coldstream Research Campus project. The Commission voted to approve the requested waiver for the Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 1B plan. The approval allows the development to proceed with the modified standards outlined in the waiver request. **Outcome:** The waiver for PLAN 2007-61F was approved by the Commission. ## Approval of Eastland Parkway Church of God, Lot 2 [timestamp: 36:00] The Commission reviewed development plan DP 2007-155 for the Eastland Parkway Church of God, Lot 2. Ron Hargett served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The plan was presented with staff-recommended conditions for approval. During the discussion, the Commission made modifications to the proposed conditions. Specifically, the Commission decided to delete condition 24 entirely from the staff recommendations. Additionally, they amended condition 23 to require that floodplain information be denoted as shown on the plan. The Commission approved the Eastland Parkway Church of God, Lot 2 development plan with the modified conditions as discussed. The approval included all staff conditions except for the deleted condition 24, and incorporated the revised language for condition 23 regarding floodplain information notation. ## Release and call of bonds [timestamp: 38:00] The Commission considered the release and call of bonds as outlined in a memorandum dated January 17, 2008. The agenda item involved reviewing and acting upon specific bond releases and calls that were detailed in the referenced memorandum. The Commission approved the release and call of bonds as presented in the January 17, 2008 memorandum without recorded discussion or debate during this portion of the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## Initiation of text amendment for extended-stay hotels in the P-1 zone [timestamp: 40:00] The Commission considered the initiation of a text amendment to allow extended-stay hotels as a permitted use in the P-1 zoning district. This agenda item focused on beginning the formal process to modify the existing zoning code to accommodate this type of lodging facility. Extended-stay hotels typically serve guests who require accommodations for longer periods than traditional hotels, often featuring amenities such as kitchenettes and separate living areas to support extended visits. The proposed text amendment would expand the range of hospitality uses permitted in the P-1 zone, which is generally designated for planned development and mixed-use projects. The Commission approved the initiation of this text amendment, setting in motion the formal review process that would include public hearings and detailed analysis of the proposed zoning changes. This approval represents the first step in what would be a multi-stage process to evaluate the appropriateness of extended-stay hotels in P-1 zoned areas. The decision to initiate the text amendment suggests the Commission recognized a potential need or demand for this type of accommodation within the P-1 zoning framework. By approving the initiation, the Commission authorized staff to begin preparing the necessary documentation and analysis that would be required for future public hearings and final consideration of the proposed zoning text changes. This action does not constitute final approval of the text amendment itself, but rather authorization to begin the formal review and public input process required for zoning code modifications. ## Initiation of text amendment to PUD-1 zone [timestamp: 42:00] The Commission considered the initiation of a text amendment to the PUD-1 zone during this meeting. The proposed amendment focused on removing outdated references from the existing zoning code language. While the specific details of the discussion and the identity of the presenting staff member were not captured in the available records, the Commission moved forward with approving the initiation of this text amendment process. The amendment appears to be a housekeeping measure designed to clean up the PUD-1 zoning code by eliminating references that are no longer current or relevant. This type of administrative update is typically undertaken to maintain clarity and accuracy in municipal zoning regulations. The Commission approved the initiation of the text amendment to the PUD-1 zone, allowing the formal amendment process to proceed. This approval represents the first step in what would likely be a multi-stage process involving public hearings and further Commission review before final adoption of the revised zoning language. ## Election of Officers [timestamp: 44:00] The Commission addressed the election of officers through a nominating committee report presented by Joan Whitman. The nominating committee had prepared a slate of candidates for the four officer positions. The committee's recommendations were: • **Chairperson**: Randall Vaughn • **Vice Chairperson**: Linda Godfrey • **Secretary**: Frank Penn • **Parliamentarian**: Mike Cravens Joan Whitman presented the nominating committee's report to the Commission for consideration. The report was accepted by the Commission without recorded opposition or debate. **Outcome**: The Commission approved the nominating committee's slate of officers. All four positions were filled as recommended, with Randall Vaughn elected as Chairperson, Linda Godfrey as Vice Chairperson, Frank Penn as Secretary, and Mike Cravens as Parliamentarian. ## Delegation of Secretary's Duties [timestamp: 46:00] The Commission addressed the delegation of the Secretary's duties during the January 17, 2008 meeting. The agenda item involved transferring certain responsibilities from the Secretary to the Director of the Division of Planning. The Commission approved the delegation of the Secretary's duties to the Director of the Division of Planning. This administrative action allows the Director to perform specific functions that would otherwise require direct action by the Secretary. The delegation was approved by the Commission without recorded opposition or significant debate during the meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from August 9, 2007 and November 8, 2007 - **DP 2007-134** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Sand Lake & Estes Property to February 28, 2008 - **PLAN 2007-52P** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Tuscany, Unit 5 to February 14, 2008 - **DP 2007-100** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Kingston Hall, Unit 2 to March 13, 2008 - **ZDP 2007-111** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of The Glen at Lochdale, Unit 4 to February 14, 2008 - **BOAR 2007-3** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Allen R. Foster appeal to February 14, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-3P** — passed (9-0): Approval of Sunny Slope, Unit 3 and a portion of Unit 1 - **PLAN 2006-148F** — passed (9-0): Reapproval of Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-B - **DP 2007-153** — passed (9-0): Approval of National Subdivision, Unit 1, Lots 5-10 - **DP 2007-138** — passed (9-0): Approval of Covey Ridge Development Company, Lot 5 - **DP 2008-01** — passed (9-0): Approval of Meadow Oaks - **DP 2008-02** — passed (8-0): Approval of Bluegrass Business Park, Pemberton Farm, Lot 3A - **PLAN 2008-2P** — passed (9-0): Approval of Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9 - **DP 2008-7** — passed (9-0): Approval of Boston Road Development, Lots 4 and 5 - **DP 2008-03** — passed (9-0): Approval of NDC Property, Unit 1A, Wellington Lot 11, Unit 3 - **PLAN 2006-251F** — passed (9-0): Reapproval of Lakepointe Subdivision, Block B, Lot 1 - **DP 2008-6** — passed (9-0): Approval of The Davis Family Children’s Irrevocable Trust - **PLAN 2007-61F** — passed (9-0): Approval of waiver for Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 1B - **DP 2007-155** — passed (9-0): Approval of Eastland Parkway Church of God, Lot 2 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Release and call of bonds listed on the memorandum dated January 17, 2008 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Initiation of text amendment for extended-stay hotels in the P-1 zone - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Initiation of text amendment to PUD-1 zone - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Acceptance of nominating committee's report for officers - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Delegation of secretary's duties to the Director of Division of Planning --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah. There's nothing better than love. What in the world could you imagine? I've been thinking of you. It's been a lifetime. Searching still for each golden star. Oh, I know that I've found true love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. When I'm with you, there's nothing better than true love. There's nothing better than love. What in the world could you imagine? I've been thinking of you. It's been a lifetime. Searching still for each golden star. Oh, I know that I've found true love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. True love. She passes me by. There's nothing better than love. I know how good you were, man. I've been thinkin' now. It's better by far. So let yourself reach for that star. You are no man. I'm no man, too. True love. True love. There's nothing better than love. I know how good you were, man. Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the January 17th meeting of the Planning Commission. And at this time, we will take approval of minutes. We have the minutes of the August 9th, 2007, and November 8th, 2007 meeting minutes. Will be considered at this time. If there are no corrections, amendments to those minutes, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of August 9th and November 8th minutes of 07. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes accepted. Okay, at this time, we'll accept any postponements or withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Rena Wiseman. I have an item on page 4B, DP 2007, 134, Sand Lake and Estes Properties. We have continued to work with the staff, but we feel an additional postponement would be helpful. The normal date would be February 14th, but Mr. Simpson, who represents an adjacent landowner, will be out of town that day, and he's asked if we could do that at the zoning meeting, which I think is the 28th, which is acceptable to us. We could do it the 31st of February. 31st of February? Might be the only ones here, but okay. We have a request for a postponement until the February 28th meeting for DP 2007-134, Sand Lake and Estes Property, located at Richmond Road and South Eagle Creek Drive. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of DP 2007-134 until February the 28th. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thanks very much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Page 1, Item 1. This is Plan 2007-1. I'm sorry, 2007-52P, Tuscany Unit 5. Request a one-month postponement to February 14th. Okay, thank you, Mr. Kaley. Mr. Kaley, we have a request for a postponement to the February 14th meeting for Plan 2007-52P, Tuscany Unit 5, located at 1970 Winchester Road. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of Plan 2007-52P until February 14th. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. On Page 3, under Development Plans, Item A, DP 2007-100, Kingston Hall, Unit 2. I'd like to request a two-month postponement to the March 13th hearing. I'm sorry, what was that date again, Mr. Kaley? March 13th. March 13th, okay. Okay, we have a request for a postponement to the March 13th meeting for DP 2007-100, Kingston Hall, Unit 2, located at 2356 Newtown Pike. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of DP 2007-100 until March 13th. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And one more postponement on the top of Page 6. Item F. This is ZDP 2007-111, the Glenet Lockdale Unit 4. Request a one-month postponement to February 14th. Okay, we have a request for a one-month postponement to the February 14th meeting for ZDP 2007-111, the Glenet Lockdale Unit 4, located at 3600 and 3652 Winthrop Drive. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of ZDP 2007-111 until February 14th. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Do we have any additional postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chair, if there aren't any more from the audience, we have the BOAR appeal that's on Page 8 of the agenda, BOAR 2007-3. They're asking for a one-month postponement to February 14th. Thank you. We have a request for a one-month postponement to the February 14th meeting for BOAR 2007-3, Alan R. Foster. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I would like to move postponement of BOAR 2007-3 to February 14th. Second. We have a motion and a second to postpone. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Okay. Any other additional postponements or withdrawals? Okay. At this time, we will move into our land subdivision items and items that have no discussion. Mr. Chairman, I'm Jerry Vandeweer. If you will please turn to Page 2, Item C, Plan 2008-3P, Sunny Slope, Unit 3, and a portion of Unit 1 amended. We agree with the conditions and ask for your approval. Thank you, Mr. Vandeweer. We have a request for approval of Plan 2008-3P, Sunny Slope, Unit 3, and a portion of Unit 1 located on Waveland Museum Lane. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of Plan 2008-3P, Sunny Slope, Unit 3. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. I'm not sure what that is. Did I cause that? I don't know. I guess I did. On the same page, Final Subdivision Plans, Item A, Plan 2006-148F, Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3B. This is a reapproval. We agree with the conditions and ask for your approval. Thank you, Mr. Vandeweer. Mr. Vandeweer, we have a request for a reapproval of Plan 2006-148F, Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-B, located at 4050 Sweep Spire Drive. This is in accordance with the previous conditions approved on August 10, 2006. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move reapproval of Plan 2006-148F, Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-B. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jason Banks. I'm with Eagle Engineering. If you'll turn to page 5 of your agenda, Item D, DP-2007-153, National Subdivision, Unit 1, Lots 5 through 10. We have spoken with staff, and I think we've got all our issues resolved and would request approval. Okay. Mr. Martin? Yes, sir, that is correct. It is Item 13, Condition 13, if you will look at that, that says, Denote compliance with Article 8-23. That has been resolved with staff. In fact, it was a staff error in interpretation, and I accept the responsibility for that. That has been resolved, so it is an approvable plan. We all make mistakes, so. Okay. That's fine. We have a request for approval of DP-2007-153, National Subdivision, Unit 1, Lots 5 through 10, located at South Fords Road and Lyle Industrial Road. It has been noted that Condition 13 has been resolved among the petitioner and staff, and that condition can be deleted. At this time, do we have anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. We move for approval of DP-2007-153 with conditions and with number 13 deleted. Second. We have a motion second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is John Kingston, and I'd like to call your attention to page 4, item C, DP-2007-138, Covey Ridge Development Company, Lot 5, located on Athens-Bonesborough Road. We are in agreement with the conditions on approval and ask that you approve this. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, if you would look at your gold yellow handout, you will see a list of conditions for this plan. You may recall this plan was originally recommended for postponement because there is a council moratorium on the Blue Sky Package Plant. That situation has been resolved. So, therefore, this plan is now approvable subject to these conditions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We have a request for approval of DP-2007-138, Covey Ridge Development Company, Lot 5, located at 5527 through 5531 Athens-Bonesborough Road. We have before us revised conditions that accompany this request for approval. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain. Yes, sir. Mr. Cravens. Just how is that resolved, the moratorium? The council asked for it. I can address that. The provisions of the moratorium were subject to a state. Actually, the state was the one that had said there could be no additional tap-ons in the Blue Sky area. This project requested from the state a waiver and approval and received that. And, therefore, the terms of the moratorium, since the state no longer was prohibiting this, it was allowed to proceed even under the terms of the council moratorium because the council moratorium was driven by the state's not permitting any additional tap-ons out there. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Thank you. Chair will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP-2007-138 with the 18 conditions provided by staff on the handle sheet. Second. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. on page 6. It's a letter G, DP-2008-01, Meadow Oaks. We're in agreement with the conditions. I have a – and there's an additional condition on a white sheet, number 11. And I have an affidavit of the sign. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. We have a request for approval of DP-2008-01, Meadow Oaks, located at 6800 Meadow Ward Boulevard, subject to the 10 conditions. And we have an additional condition as posted on the overhead for this particular property. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP-2008-01 with 11 conditions. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Chris Howard with Carman. Still on page 6, item H, DP-2008-02, Bluegrass Business Park. We have read and understand and agree to the conditions listed, 18 conditions. Request approval. Thank you. At this time, I need to recuse myself from this application. I'll turn the Chair over to Commissioner Whitman to carry out. We have a request for approval of DP-2008-02, Bluegrass Business Park, Pemberton Farm, Lot 3A with 18 conditions. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this? If not, do I hear a motion? Move for approval of DP-2008-02, Bluegrass Business Park. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Brad Toon. I'm with CMW Inc. Just one moment. I'm sorry. I need to turn the Chair back to Mr. Vaughan. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Brad Toon. I'm with CMW Inc. Please turn to page 2, top of the page, item B, Plan 2008-2P, Calumet Terrace, Subdivision Lots 8 and 9. We are in agreement with all the staff conditions and we respectfully request approval. Thank you, sir. We have a request for approval of Plan 2008-2P, Calumet Terrace, Subdivision Lots 8 and 9, located at 1332 Viley Road, subject to 17 conditions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of Plan 2008-2P, Calumet Terrace, Subdivision Lots 8 and 9. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Commissioner, members, my name is John Napora with Endress Engineering. If you'll look on page 7, item K, DP 2008-7, Boston Road Development, Lots 4 and 5 amended. We agree with the conditions and would like to request approval. Okay, we have a request for approval of DP 2008-7, Boston Road Development, Lots 4 and 5, located at 3801 Dillon Place, subject to the 8 conditions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Condition 8. Yes, Ms. Phillips. Condition 8 on this plat asks for review by the Technical Committee. Did the development plan go before the Technical Committee, and this is a second glance at it, or has it not been seen by the Technical Committee? I'm trying to recall. I was actually at the subdivision committee meeting. It is a late file, Mr. Chairman, so it has not been before the Technical Committee, which is standard with our late files. They miss the Technical Committee, so then it's a standard condition that they do go back to the Technical Committee. If I recall, I think there was some discussion about that, but felt that the request in this particular plan was appropriate in this fashion without review by Technical, if I recall. Is that other members of the committee that day, do you recall that same discussion? Okay. All right. We have a request for approval of this plan. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP-2008-7, Boston Road Development, Lots 4 and 5, amended. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page 7, also at the top. Item I, DP-2008-03, NDC Property, Unit 1A, Wellington Lot 11, Unit 3, amended. I represent Quest Community Church, the owner of the property. We agree to the staff conditions and request your approval. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We have a request for approval of DP-2008-03, NDC Property, Unit 1A, located at 413 Sporting Court. Subject to the 20 conditions. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP-2008-03, NDC Property, and recognize this gentleman for winning the most conditions yet. 20. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. I will say I think we've already complied with over half of those. That's great. We didn't quibble over it when we came up here. Thank you. We appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Commission, members, Mr. Mr. Commission. I like that. You got me going now. I'm still thinking about how many conditions I got. I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. On page 3, item B, Plan 2006-251F. This is Lake Point Subdivision Block B, Lot 1. This is up for reapproval. We are in agreement with the nine conditions plus one additional condition that's handed out by staff and would request approval of all ten conditions. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. We have a request for approval of Plan 2006-251F, Lake Point Subdivision Block B, Lot 1, located at 2374 Lake Park Road, subject to the nine conditions. And there has been one additional condition added on the white sheet that's on the overhead for this particular application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for approval? Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify that. Yes, sir. Note 10 would read Revised Lot 1. That 1 is very squiggly. That is Lot 1. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Correct. It is. It says Lot 1 on the sheet here. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I move reapproval of 2006-251F with the ten conditions. We have a motion and second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Item page 7. Item J. This is DP-2008-6, the Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust Amended Development Plan. We are in agreement with the 15 conditions and request approval. Okay. We have a request for approval of DP-2008-6, the Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust, located at 3500 Harrisburg Road, subject to the 15 conditions. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this request for approval? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP-2008-6 with conditions. We have a motion and second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody's cool? Do we have any items from the staff? Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I may turn your attention back to page 6 in the Meadow Oaks plan that you just previously approved. Staff neglected to hand out an item to you, which is a memorandum stating that this plan does still comply with the expansion area elements as required. It's such a minute change, and I apologize. We forgot to hand that out. That's not a finding or anything. It's just part of your rate. It should be part of your motion, an acceptance of the memorandum, and that it is in compliance. So we need you to revisit that motion. Okay. I guess I'll ask law. Is it appropriate just to revisit this? Can we take action just on the memo itself? Yes, I think it would be appropriate. I'll step in to go ahead and take a motion. You don't need to rescind the previous approval. Just to note for the record, the submittal of the compliance statement is required by the ordinance, and the commission does accept that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to note that was Meadow Oaks, correct? Yes, sir. It was Meadow Oaks. I'd like to note that we do have a memorandum indicating compliance with the EMAP for DP2006-01, Meadow Oaks, located at 6800 Manowar Boulevard. We need to take action accepting that memorandum in compliance. The chair at this time, if there's no questions from the commission, will entertain a motion. So moved. Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the memorandum of compliance. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I guess we have any other items from the staff? Sounded items from the staff? By my account, it appears we're on page 3, Cold Stream Farm. Yes. Mr. Chairman, this is an item that is a waiver request for a plan that has already been approved. The University of Kentucky is requesting a waiver to our process regarding the engineering manuals and those requirements. You have a report that's been handed out to you, and it is in reference to the bonding requirements and the laying down of the final course of asphalt. The University of Kentucky has conveyed to us and to the Division of Engineering that they would like to pave this section of street in order to further the marketing and the development of Cold Stream. And you can see in your report that we have reviewed that, and we have recommended approval of this waiver request. Otherwise, they would be asked not to pave it and post a bond by the Division of Engineering. That is done in order to protect the street from damage when further development takes place. It is not conducive, they feel, to their efforts to market Cold Stream and bring in clients, et cetera. So they've asked for some relief from those requirements. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions from commission? We have the waiver that staff has distributed, and staff has recommended approval for the reasons provided. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add to Mr. Martin's comments. The waiver also requests a waiver to the bonding for the surety, performance surety, which is somewhat of an unusual waiver. In this particular case, the university has a contract already agreed to between themselves and the contractor that basically mirrors the subdivision regulation requirements for a financial surety for the performance of the infrastructure. So they are asking for relief of our subdivision regulations, but it would not be a circumvention since they already have that under contractual obligation. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sonley, for that clarification there. Is there a motion? Discussion? Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I mean, the university has an agreement with their contractor, but where does the city fit in on that? If we don't, you know, if we don't do the bond. You mean the engineering part of that? Yes. We would be able to revisit that at the next time that a plan would come through in that particular area. But part of the pavement, as my understanding, not being put down, was at the request of the Division of Engineering to ensure that the subpavement would meet the requirements of the engineering manuals. My understanding is the university was prepared to apply the final course there. I understand that part. Right. I don't want this other part that the university and a contractor have an agreement and then we didn't need a bond to secure us. It looks like we're, I mean, they could agree to anything and leave us out. I might like to clarify that a little further. This has been a discussion between the university and the urban county government. As an entity, the state and the University of Kentucky would not have the possibility of just going away. You know, when we get a performance bond with a developer, we don't know if that corporate entity will survive, will be around. Obviously, when you're dealing with a state institution, it's a little different situation. So as opposed to them going out and getting the traditional surety like a private developer would, it seemed that the agreement and the knowledge that they have this backup agreement with their contractor was an acceptable substitution for the traditional surety. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? I would just like to say that with Governor Beshear's budget cuts, I'm not so sure that, you know, waiving the university from the surety is a good step. But I just don't want this to be precedent setting. I think the fact that we are dealing with a public institution, the university, that that provides enough justification to satisfy my conscience in approving this waiver. Okay. Thank you. I had a question for Mr. Martin. I guess under item C on page 3 of this particular plan, would there be a condition 9 provided we grant the waiver? Would that be did I miss something there or? Because it. You do not need to add it into the condition list. You've already approved the conditions. Your action today will satisfy the waiver. Will satisfy. It does not need to be added as a separate condition. Your action will satisfy that need. So we just need to take action on the waiver itself, correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Is everyone clear on where we are right now? Okay. Is there any additional discussion? Chair will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we approve waiver article 4-7D and 8 and 4-7D9 in the land survey regulations for the University of Kentucky. The university is requesting. And I don't know, do I need to put the plan in there? I think it would be good to go ahead and put the plan in there so we know. It is concerned to plan 2007-61F Cold Stream Research Campus. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the waiver. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. It is so good to hear Mr. Day's voice again. Okay. Next item is on page 4. I'm sorry. Page 5. Item 8. Page 5. Page 5. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you for your patience. If I could direct you to page 5, item E, development plan 2007-155, the Eastland Parkway Church of God, lot 2. And I will say now, before it escapes my attention, it's lots 1 and 2 is actually the correct title of this plan. There are two lots on the plan. And you will see by your waiver report also that we'll discuss shortly that it does say lots 1 and 2. But I wanted to catch that now. This plan was reviewed by the subdivision committee and recommended for referral to the full commission. Tom, I need to reduce myself on this. Okay. All right. Thank you. Duly noted. Mr. Cravens recusing himself from this project. Here we have the development plan that has been submitted. This is Liberty Road. The entire frontage of the property is on Liberty Road. Here on this side we have Liberty Corner subdivision. Up in here, and we brought this out so you could see, here is the subject property. Here is the subdivision. Here is where Starship Parkway will be coming in to intersect with Liberty Road. You can see here Nickwood Trail and the stub into this property. This is the subject of the waiver that we're going to discuss. The plan itself shows an expansion of the assisted living facility in this area, approximately 50,000 square feet. They are also asking to expand and build 26 additional cottages, retirement cottages, on the property. We have the church, and they are asking to expand the church facilities at this time as well. And, again, that's why I wanted to stress it's lots one and two. You have seen this plan before, but it's been some time since we've had a plan with the church and any expansion on the church. So, again, you can see parking, the church, the proposed expansions, parking in the rear. Here is the circulation pattern with the associated parking for the assisted living facility. As you can see from looking at your agenda, the new record holder today for conditions is this plan with 24 conditions. Many of those, in fact, the majority are cleanup conditions, standard conditions. There was a lot of information missing from the plan. Again, it was standard information but required. The staff did have several concerns, however, and those are your discussion items. One area of concern was in here, in that we have a floodplain on the property. The previous development plan showed this floodplain, and there was no conflict with the existing structures. They were well outside the 25-foot setback of the floodplain. This new plan did not reflect that information accurately. We have talked with the applicant. We have talked with a local engineer who is working with them who did the previous plan, and we are requiring them now just to show that information accurately. The information on the first plan is the accurate information. This plan will need to show that information accurately. So that was discussion item number one. Discussion item number two is where Nickwood Trail stubs into the property, and this, again, is the subject of your waiver report. The applicant is requesting a waiver to not construct the cul-de-sac into their property or a street, and as you all are very well aware, we require either a continuity of street or a cul-de-sac terminus to a stub. In this particular case, we have Conner, not Conner, pardon me, Liberty Corners. With only one access at Rambling Creek onto Liberty Road, and a stub here, which is also a church, and a stub here. The anticipation was that should this property develop residentially or in some other use, that this would be necessary. The church has come in, and with this development plan, again, demonstrating the expansion of the church, parking in this area, they show a driveway here that would lead to Nickwood Trace. There are only two houses that actually front on Nickwood Trace, and you can see the bulb. When staff reviewed the waiver request, you can see that we've recommended approval. It was determined in conversations with both sanitation and fire that that bulb would adequately serve their needs. Furthermore, you can see that staff, in anticipation of possibly future development, we are asking that this be reconsidered should the church come in and want to redevelop a property and add residential uses in that area of the plan. We believe at that time that certainly a cul-de-sac or a street extension would be worthy of discussion once again. They are asking at this time that the driveway, they have said that they want that driveway to go away. So we're not concerned with church traffic now coming through into this neighborhood and being concentrated here, but we have requested, you can see in your report, that they provide a pedestrian sidewalk from here to hook up internally to allow for pedestrian movement and safety in this area. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions from the commission? I think you'll have some later. Folks are still studying the plan like myself. Okay. Thank you. Petitioner, do you have anything you'd like to add? Is there anyone in? Are you? Okay. I agree with all the conditions in terms that the staff has recommended and request your approval. Can we get your name for the record? Yeah, Ron Hargett. Okay. And we are with, obviously, DP2007-1155. As Tom said, the new record holder for the conditions now, number 24. I had a question for Mr. Martin. On condition 23, you're asking them to denote the floodplain information, is that right? Yes, sir. We are asking them to now denote the correct floodplain information. Okay. Thank you. And then number 24 was, again, discussion item for the commission. Yes, sir. And it would go away with your approval or your disapproval of the waiver request. Of the waiver request. Thank you. I have a question. Mr. Aitken. On the matter of the floodplain, does it affect the building locations in that area? Mr. Aitken, that's exactly the concern staff had, because this information is incorrect. And the plan that these were built off of has the floodplain back further this way, and they are outside of that 25-foot setback, which is exactly why we raised the issue, why the new plan would have that incorrect information and that obvious conflict. But these are actually built. So those units up there in the corner, which you just pointed to, they are constructed and existing. Yes, sir. And the units that run around are proposed for new. Yes, sir. Got you. Okay. I have another question. In looking at these two plans, what is the interrelatedness between these two plans? Between? And functionally. We have a sidewalk connection here and here. Of course, this is an assisted living facility, a retirement community. They can walk to the church for services and involvement with the church. The church is expanding its role with classroom activities and other things. And so that is they have created an entity that does own this, is my understanding. But in terms of a physical relationship, it is strictly a pedestrian and a shared access. Well, I think that's an important thing. As I view this, it's really a complete entity here, and it needs to be addressed that way with any circulation elements. And I appreciate having that information that you gave me on the pedestrian aspect of it. I'm a little concerned about the connectivity from an automobile standpoint between the two. And it seems like it's circuitous as it looks directly related between the two elements, which I think would have functioned properly that way. And I'm not talking about having external circulation from a community standpoint, but from the interconnectivity I think would be important. But that's just my point of view. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Mahan? Or Mr. Hargit, you're okay with the sidewalk that Mr. Martin was talking about, putting that pedestrian right of way through there? Yeah. Well, when you get my age, you enjoy seeing additional retirement cabins and extended living. So I like what you're doing. Are you suggesting that you make it big enough for a golf cart to get to our age? I still have a tricycle. Mr. Day, the paths on the plan are wide enough for a golf cart so that the people can go back and forth to church. Thank you, sir. Okay. We have the waiver. With regards to the connectivity, staff has recommended approval of the requested waiver for the reasons provided. Reason one is construction of an extension at Cul-de-Sac at this time would constitute a hardship for the church since no new residential dwellings are proposed on the eastern side of their property. Should new housing units be proposed on the eastern side of the church's property in the future, the street could be considered for extension or completion at that time. And reason two is granting this waiver will not negatively impact public health and safety. And that approval or that recommendation is made subject to one additional requirement, and that has to do with the sidewalk for pedestrian connectivity. Are there any other questions? Is there a motion? I believe in this case. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of Plan DP-2007-155, as well as the waiver for the reasons just mentioned, with the 24 conditions. Move approval. Now, would you delete 24 as a discussion? Because the waiver will supersede that based on your connectivity with the sidewalk. So it would be? Delete 24. And change 23 to say denote. Correct. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve DP-2007-156. I'm sorry, 155 Eastland Parkway, Church of God, Lot 2, located at 2550 and 2598 Liberty Road, subject to the 23 conditions, deleting condition 24 and changing 23 to say denote floodplain information as shown, and granting the waiver of Article VI-B of the subdivision regulations, as recommended by staff for the reasons provided and the recommendation made subject to an additional requirement. We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. At this time, we'll have a call for performance bonds and letter of credit. We have a memorandum, if we could. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for the release and call of bonds listed on the memorandum dated January 17, 2008. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept the release and call of bonds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. At this time, I'll open the meeting to staff if they have any items at this time. Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, we do have two text amendment items. Mr. Chairman, the first, if I could refer you to page 8, items 7A and 7B. The first is an item we've discussed for several months with the commission. The staff would request initiation of a text amendment to allow extended stay hotels in the P1 zone. We've discussed this at your zoning committee meeting, I think at least on one occasion, and also at one of your zoning meetings in the last few months as well. If initiated, the staff, of course, will prepare a staff report, take care of notification, and review this fully with your zoning committee prior to any public hearing at the commission. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Solley. Do we have any questions for Mr. Solley on items 7A and 7B at this time? We need to look at these separately, initiate these separately, correct? Probably would be good. I do have an overhead for item 7B. Okay. We'll take item 7A first. Any questions for Mr. Solley? Any discussion? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion. Okay. We have a motion and a second to initiate the text amendment for extended stay hotels in the P1 zone. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Moving now to item B. The staff has discovered in the last couple of weeks that our PUD 1 zone has a locational criteria that we have not looked at in a number of years. And this locational criteria we're putting up on the overhead. Let's see if I can dim the lights a little bit. Maybe that will be a little more visible. The PUD 1 zone has been utilized one time in the urban service area, and that was with a zone change in a development plan, I believe, either in the late 1980s or early 1990s. A locational criteria of the zone refers to the growth functional planning area as defined in the comprehensive plan. The 1980 and 1988 comprehensive plans did define this. The 1996, 2001, and 2007 comprehensive plans have not. In discussion, we discussed this briefly with the law department and think the time has come either to remove this from the ordinance or to amend the comprehensive plan. And quite frankly, I think the staff thinks it's much easier to do a text amendment to remove this provision. So that's why we're asking that this text amendment be initiated so basically we can update the locational criteria for this zone. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Any questions for Mr. Salih at this time? That's correct. We have one area that is zone PUD 1. My memory was when it was first requested, there were a number of different types of housing that were proposed on a large farm that had multifamily townhouse, single-family detached, a clubhouse, not unlike any other subdivision. I think what ended up developing on that farm was mostly single-family detached housing with a little bit of attached townhouse and a smaller area of patio homes. And basically the developer hit a hot single-family market and just went with that. It did not end up looking vastly different from any of the other more suburban subdivisions. Do we have a zoning classification that would allow mixed-use development? We have drafted a PUD zone in the infill and redevelopment area. That has not advanced to much consideration yet by the Planning Commission. Staff did some work on that last year, and we may be discussing that with you very soon. Of course, our mixed-use zones that are applicable inside New Circle Road obviously allow mixed-use and are similar to a PUD in that they have very low setback requirements. So the development plan, location of building and arrangements obviously is much more important in the mixed-use zones because of that reason. Well, how do we get mixed-use outside of New Circle Road? I mean, there are dumps that have that. Mr. Holmes, Mr. Aden asked if you could use your microphone. He's having some difficulty hearing you. So how do we get the mixed-use classifications outside of New Circle Road? Obviously there are some developments that have mixed-use. So what zoning classification are they using? Of course, our P1 and B1 do allow mixed-use with residential and non-residential. They're very restricted in terms of height. You still have the typical setback requirements. But I think that is of interest to the staff as well is how we promote mixed-use just beyond the New Circle Road area. Yeah, that would be my concern. I mean, I don't have a problem with removing this, but I want to make sure we have something in place that would continue to promote mixed-use development outside of New Circle Road and have some mixed-use communities. We had prepared just a little more background. We had prepared text amendments and have been in community conversation about those, a very large package. And given both the public concerns and the initiation of the infill and redevelopment task forces, the public wanted some breathing space on that and let that process see if it spoke to those issues, which it has to some degree. So as that is winding on and continuing on, we plan to reevaluate those text amendments at the conclusion of the infill and redevelopment task force process. And these ideas that seem to merit continuing forward, we will be bringing back as a text amendment to you. Okay, that's all. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Any additional discussion on this request? We have a request for initiation of the zoning ordinance text amendment to the PUD-1 zone, as noted on the overhead, to remove the wording within the growth functional planning area as defined in the comprehensive plan. So with that, the Chair will entertain a motion. I'm sorry, Mr. Craven, did you have a question? So you just want to take that out of the? I mean, there's so many words in there. Why are you taking that one sentence out? That is no longer a part of our comprehensive plan. So it's a locational criteria. Could it be used? I can address that as well. The opinion of the law department is with that in there, there's really no way to use the zone because in order to meet the criteria for the zone, you have to be in one of those areas, and those areas don't exist anymore. So it needs a clarification. And then I assume that the staff will also look at any other aspects of it that might also need to be updated. Correct. We will look at that and also look at whether we want to replace this with a different kind of locational criteria or a different statement or just take it out and not have anything else. And, again, this is to initiate this amendment. I don't think we're not trying to decide it today. We're trying to initiate it today. So I just want to make that clear for everyone. So will the chair entertain a motion at this time? Mr. Chairman, I move that staff initiates a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding the PUD 1 zone. Second. Motion and second to initiate zoning ordinance text amendment to the PUD 1 zone. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. King, I apologize. I skipped over the last two items in the commission items. I apologize. It's no problem, Mr. Chairman. Whatever order you would like to take these items, it's your prerogative, sir. We can start with item B. In accordance with our bylaws, I nominated or appointed a nominating committee for election of officers in 2008 to lead this illustrious body. And at that time appointed Ms. Whitman, Mr. Day, and Mr. Holmes to be a part of that nominating committee. And at this time I'll turn that report over to Ms. Whitman. Mr. Chairman, the nominating committee conferred and the report is chairperson, Randall Vaughn, vice chair, Linda Godfrey, secretary, Frank Penn, parliamentarian, let's see, Mike Cravens. And I move for acceptance of the committee report. Is there a motion? Second. There's a motion and a second to accept the nominating committee's report for officers at this time. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. I knew I wore my new coat today for something. Okay. At this time we have the delegation of secretary's duties. And Mr. King, do you want to, as far as delegation? This does take a commission's vote, but traditionally the commission has delegated the secretary's duties other than signing minutes, which basically is subdivision plans, development plans and things of that nature, hundreds a year, to the director and anyone that I would designate in my absence. We hope that you all will do that again. Okay. We need a motion to delegate delegation of secretary's duties to Mr. King. Is there a discussion? Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for the delegation of the secretary's duties to the director of division of planning, except for the signing of the minutes. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Okay. At this time, if there's any items from the audience, any audience items, we'll take those. If not, Mr. King. Just two items of information, Mr. Chairman. One, I would like to remind you that you do have a work session next Thursday. We haven't had one of those in a while, but I think we're looking forward to updating you on a number of things that are going on. I think you'll find an interesting work session. The other thing, you may be wondering about the belated Christmas present at your places, a somewhat large packet of materials that we put together and had prepared after your last hearing when you had the discussion on the S property and the discussion about the application to the Corps of Engineers that the developer had made and specifically the Red Wing study that was referred to in that hearing after the meeting we conferred with Mr. Newman and his suggestion thought it might be a good idea to give you all copies of that to have as background so that you could see that report, see what was involved with it. Again, you have nothing pending in front of you related to that, but I would just call this as background information if you are interested in looking at that. I know some of the members have been very interested in that, and so we spent a little bit of the taxpayers' money to make that available to you. Thank you, Mr. King. Any questions or comments for Mr. King? Fantastic. If there's no further business, the chair will accept the motion for adjournment. All right, meeting adjourned.