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.