# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - April 10, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · April 10, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/459 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/459?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-04-10 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 2, 2026 - **Length**: 8,775 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 April 10, 2008, at 1:33 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed five main agenda items covering standard procedural matters including the call to order, approval of minutes, postponements or withdrawals, land subdivision items, and development plans. During the session, commissioners conducted 15 motions and votes on various planning matters before the body. The meeting included one public comment from a citizen, providing community input on the items under consideration. All agenda items were handled as informational matters, indicating the commission processed routine planning business and procedural items during this regular meeting session. ## Attendance The Commission meeting on April 10, 2008 had strong attendance with eleven members present and no absences recorded. **Present:** • Randall Vaughn • Linda Godfrey • Frank Penn • Ed Holmes • Carolyn Richardson • Joan Whitman • James Mahan • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Mike Cravens • Lyle Aten • Neill Day **Absent:** • None **Late Arrivals:** • Lyle Aten All Commission members participated in the meeting, with Lyle Aten arriving after the scheduled start time. The full attendance allowed the Commission to conduct business with complete representation. ## Votes and Decisions The Planning Commission took 15 unanimous votes during the April 10, 2008 meeting, with all 11 commissioners present voting in favor of each motion. **Postponements** The commission postponed multiple items to future meetings. Linda Godfrey motioned to postpone PLAN 2007-201F to the May 8, 2008 meeting, seconded by Frank Penn [timestamp: 00:30]. Frank Penn then motioned to postpone PLAN 2007-52P to May 8, 2008, seconded by Lyle Aten [timestamp: 01:30]. Linda Godfrey motioned to postpone both PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F to May 8, 2008, seconded by James Mahan [timestamp: 02:30]. Additional postponements included DP 2008-36 to April 24, 2008 (Godfrey/Penn) [timestamp: 03:30], DP 2007-100 to May 8, 2008 (Penn/Whitman) [timestamp: 04:30], PLAN 2008-9P to May 8, 2008 (Aten/Penn) [timestamp: 06:30], PLAN 2008-28F to May 8, 2008 (Godfrey/Richardson) [timestamp: 07:30], DP 2008-51 to May 8, 2008 (Whitman/Aten) [timestamp: 08:30], and PLAN 2008-44F to May 8, 2008 (Penn/Aten) [timestamp: 09:30]. DP 2008-27 was indefinitely postponed on a motion by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 05:30]. **Approvals** Neill Day motioned to approve items on the consent agenda, seconded by James Mahan [timestamp: 10:30]. The commission approved DP 2008-30 subject to 16 listed conditions (Godfrey/Mahan) [timestamp: 11:30], PLAN 2008-39F subject to revised staff conditions (Aten/Whitman) [timestamp: 12:30], DP 2008-49 subject to 13 conditions from the blue sheet (Penn/unknown) [timestamp: 13:30], and DP 2008-53 with listed conditions [timestamp: 14:30]. All votes were 11-0 with commissioners Randall Vaughn, Linda Godfrey, Frank Penn, Ed Holmes, Carolyn Richardson, Joan Whitman, James Mahan, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Mike Cravens, Lyle Aten, and Neill Day voting in favor. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one community member addressed the Commission regarding local traffic concerns. **Tom Blues** spoke about traffic issues on Spur Road [timestamp: 15:30]. Blues expressed concerns about existing traffic congestion and safety problems in the area. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that any future development projects do not worsen the current traffic situation on Spur Road. His comments highlighted the need for careful consideration of transportation impacts when evaluating development proposals that could affect this roadway. The public comment period provided an opportunity for community input on matters of local concern, with traffic safety and congestion being the primary focus of citizen engagement at this meeting. ## Contested Items The Commission meeting on April 10, 2008, featured one primary contested item that generated significant community discussion. **Access to Spur Road for Larkin Property** The main point of contention centered on proposed access arrangements for the Larkin Property development via Spur Road. Community members voiced strong opposition to the proposal, citing concerns about increased traffic congestion and potential safety hazards that additional vehicular access would create on Spur Road. The disagreement involved local residents who attended the meeting to express their objections to the development's proposed traffic patterns. Their primary concerns focused on how additional traffic from the Larkin Property would impact the existing road infrastructure and create safety risks for current residents and pedestrians in the area. The discussion prompted the Commission to examine the conditions that would need to be met for approval of the development plan. Rather than proceeding with the original access proposal, the Commission engaged in deliberations about what modifications or additional requirements might address the community's traffic and safety concerns while still allowing the development to move forward. The outcome involved the Commission considering revised conditions for the development approval that would need to address the community's stated concerns about traffic congestion and safety on Spur Road. The specific resolution and final conditions established by the Commission would determine how the Larkin Property development could proceed while mitigating the community's objections to the proposed Spur Road access arrangements. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided source materials for this contested item.* ## Call to Order The Commission meeting was called to order by Randall Vaughn at 1:33 p.m. in the Council Chambers [timestamp: 00:00]. This agenda item served as the formal opening of the April 10, 2008 Commission meeting, with no additional discussion or debate recorded for this procedural item. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:10] Commission Chair Randall Vaughn addressed agenda item 2 regarding the approval of minutes from previous meetings. Vaughn informed the commission that there were no minutes available for approval at this time. No further discussion occurred on this agenda item, and no action was required from the commission members. The item served as an informational notice that the typical process of reviewing and approving meeting minutes would not take place during this session. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:20] The Commission addressed several planning applications that required postponement to future meetings during this agenda item. Laura Wachter and Rory Cayley served as the key speakers for this discussion. Multiple development plans were identified for postponement, including: • PLAN 2007-201F • PLAN 2007-52P • Additional plans requiring deferral to subsequent Commission meetings The postponements appeared to be procedural in nature, allowing additional time for review, preparation, or coordination before the Commission could take action on these planning matters. This agenda item served an informational purpose, notifying Commission members and the public of the scheduling changes for these development applications. The discussion provided clarity on which items would not be considered during the current meeting and established expectations for when these matters would return to the Commission's agenda for full consideration. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 10:00] The Commission received an informational report on Land Subdivision Items during agenda item 4. Bill Sallee provided an update on the activities of the Subdivision Committee. Sallee reported that the Subdivision Committee had met and reviewed various subdivision plans, making recommendations on each proposal. Several of the items that received committee approval were subsequently placed on the Commission's consent agenda for final approval. The presentation was informational in nature, with Sallee summarizing the committee's work rather than presenting specific plans for individual Commission review. The streamlined process allowed routine subdivision matters that had already received committee approval to move efficiently through the consent agenda process. No specific concerns or debates were raised during this agenda item, as it served primarily as a status update on the Subdivision Committee's recent activities and decisions. The Commission accepted the report without further discussion or action required. ## Development Plans [timestamp: 11:00] The Commission reviewed several development plans during this agenda item, with Tom Martin and Barry McNeese serving as the primary speakers for the discussion. The meeting focused on two specific development plans: • DP 2008-30 • DP 2008-49 Both development plans were presented with conditions for approval, though the specific details of these conditions were not elaborated in the available materials. The discussion appeared to be part of the Commission's regular review process for proposed developments within their jurisdiction. Tom Martin and Barry McNeese led the presentation and discussion of these development plans, providing information to the Commission members about the proposals and their associated requirements. The agenda item was classified as informational in nature, indicating that the Commission received updates and details about these development plans rather than taking formal action on them during this meeting. This suggests the plans may have been in various stages of the review process, with the Commission being briefed on their status and any conditions that would need to be met for future approval. The discussion of development plans represents a routine but important function of the Commission, as these reviews help ensure that proposed developments meet local standards and requirements before moving forward in the approval process. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone PLAN 2007-201F to the May 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone PLAN 2007-52P to the May 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F to the May 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone DP 2008-36 to the April 24, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone DP 2007-100 to the May 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Indefinitely postpone DP 2008-27 - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-9P to the May 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-28F to the May 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone DP 2008-51 to the May 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — postponed (11-0): Postpone PLAN 2008-44F to the May 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve items on the consent agenda - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve DP 2008-30, subject to the 16 conditions listed on the agenda - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve PLAN 2008-39F, subject to the revised conditions as listed by the staff - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve DP 2008-49, subject to the 13 conditions as appeared on the blue sheet - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve DP 2008-53 with the conditions listed --- ## Full transcript I would like to call to order the April 10th meeting of the Planning Commission and at this time we do not have any minutes to approve and we will go into our request for postponements or withdrawals, if there are any requests for postponements or withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, Commission members, my name is Laura Watchter, I'm with Strand Associates. On page 2, under final subdivision plans, item A, plan 2007-201F, NDC property unit 1A, lot 16, Wellington amended. We would like to request a one-month postponement to the May 8th meeting. Thank you, Ms. Watchter. Staff, is that correct, May the 8th? It is, sir. The staff has no objection. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salih. We have a request for a one-month postponement of plan 2007-201F, NDC property unit 1-A, lot 16, located at 249 Ruscio Way. 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. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2007-201F to the May the 8th meeting. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EA Partners. If we could start on page 1, item 1, plan 2007-52P, Tuscan Unit 5, request a one-month postponement until May 8th. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. We have a request for a one-month postponement of plan 2007-52P, Tuscany Unit 5, located at 1970 Winchester Road. 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. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2007-52P to the May 8th meeting. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. On page 3, items B and C, these are both Thomas Communications Inc. incorporated properties. I would request a one-month postponement on both plan 2008-24F and 2008-25F. Thank you, sir. We have a request for a one-month postponement for plan 2008-24F, Thomas Communications Inc., Unit 1C, and plan 2008-25F, Thomas Communications Inc., Unit 1D, both properties located at 2236 Walnut Grove. 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. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan 2008-22F and plan 2008-25F to the May 8th meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. On page 7, this is item C. It's DP-2008-36, the reserve at Walnut Grove. I did not get my sign posted in time, and I'd like to request a two-week postponement to fix the date. Can I get the date on that? 24th. 24th. Okay, we have a request for a two-week postponement of DP-2008-36, reserve at Walnut Grove, located at 3820 Hadfield Lane. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a two-week postponement? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. What's that date, April 24th? April 24th, yes. Mr. Chair, I move for a two-week postponement for DP-2008-36 to the April 24th meeting. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Back on page 6. Under Development Plans, DP-2007-100, Kingston Hall, Unit 2, request a one-month postponement to May 8th. Okay, thank you, Mr. Caley. We have a request for a one-month postponement for DP-2007-100, Kingston Hall, Unit 2, located at 2356 Newtown Pike. 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. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement to the May 8th, DP-2007-100. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. One more postponement, please. Next item on your agenda is DP-2008-27, Sylvia Taylor Milburn Property, request an indefinite postponement. Thank you, Mr. Caley. That's page 6, under Development Plans. Thank you, Mr. Caley. We have a request for an indefinite postponement for DP-2008-27, Sylvia Taylor Milburn, located at 767 and 771 Lane Island Road. 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. Chairman, I move for a postponement of DP-2008-27, indefinite postponement of DP-2008-27. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any additional postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Martin, do you have? Mr. Chairman, we have four items on your agenda, three of which we have received written notification from the applicant requesting postponement. The first one of those is on page 2, Plan 2008-9F, Hillenmayer Property, 9P. We have received a written request to postpone that for one month. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We have a written request from the applicant for a one-month postponement of Plan 2008-9P, Hillenmayer Property, located on Lucille Drive and Sandersville Road. 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. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement for Plan 2008-9P. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. The second item is on page 3 of your agenda, Plan 2008-28F, Lakeview Island, Unit 3, The Landings. We have received a written request to postpone that for one month. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We have a written request from the applicant for a one-month postponement for Plan 2008-28F, Lakeview Island, Unit 3, located at 2414 Lake Park Road. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request? Seeing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement to May 8 for Plan 2008-28F. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, on page 8 of your agenda, item H, DP 2008-51, Palumbo Property, Garden Springs, Unit 1S, amended. We have also received a written request to postpone that plan for one month. Looks like May 8 is going to be a busy, busy day. We have a request for a one-month postponement for DP 2008-51, Palumbo Property, located at 820 Lane Island Road. 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. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement until May 8 for DP 2008-51. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. And the final item, Mr. Chairman, is on page 5 of your agenda, item J, Plan 2008-44F. The applicant was present at the Subdivision Committee where the recommendation of postponement was made. They apparently are not here today, but again, that item could be postponed if you so wish. Commission, I guess at this time, is this an item you want to hear? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this particular application, Plan 2008-44F, Highmount Subdivision Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17, located at 2932 Candlelight Way? Seeing none, the Chair will turn to Commission. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement to Plan 2008-44F. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay. We will now move into our land subdivision items, and the Planning Commission is actually venturing into new territory today. We have in our possession the Consent Agenda for applications. This Consent Agenda are applications that have criteria. Those five criteria are listed on the Consent Agenda, and at this time, I will ask the staff to read these particular applications in for the record. And for Commission members, if you would like to hear any of these applications, we will thus remove that from the Consent Agenda and have a full hearing. Same for applicants and petitioners. If you would like to have a discussion on a particular item, the same, and the same goes for the audience. If there are items that you feel or you would like to have a discussion, please let us know. So at this time, I'll turn it over to Mr. Salih to read the Consent Agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The criteria for the Consent Agenda appear at the top of the first page of that agenda with today's date. The staff has stamped that as draft because this is our first one, and depending upon your review to us in the next few weeks, we'll be glad to make modifications to this format in the future. The first item on the Consent Agenda is Plan 2008-36P, a Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Cold Stream Research Campus, Unit 4, amended. This is for property at McGrathiana Parkway. This item also appears on the Regular Agenda, Page 2. Final Subdivision Plans, the bottom of the first page of the Consent Agenda, Plan 2008-37F, Howard House Church of God, Phase 2, amended for property at 333 Blackburn Avenue. This item appears on the Regular Agenda on Page 4. Page 2 of the Consent Agenda, Item B, Plan 2008-38F, Anderson Subdivision. This is a subdivision, final record plan for property at 317 Robertson Street. This item also appears on Page 4 of the Standard Agenda. Consent Agenda, Item C, Plan 2008-41F, Maple Leaf Subdivision, Unit 1, Blots 1, 8, and 9, amended for property at 3150 Maple Leaf Drive. This item appears on the top of Page 5 of today's Regular Agenda. Item D on the Consent Agenda, Page 2, Plan 2008-42F, Victory Lutheran Church, a final subdivision plan for property at 1420 Todd's Road and 2835 Riadosa Drive. This plan appears on Page 5 of the Standard Agenda. Item E, bottom of Page 2 of the Consent Agenda, Plan 2008-49F, Richardson Unit 5, Section 2, for property located at Hannah Todd Place. This item appears on the top of Page 6 of today's Agenda. Consent Agenda, Page 3, Development Plans, the first, DP 2008-36, Reserve at Walnut Grove, amended for property at 3820 Hatfield Lane. This item has been postponed. Next item on the Consent Agenda, Item B, 2008-47, Crossroads Plaza, amended. This is a final development plan amendment for property at Nicholsville Road and East Reynolds Road. This appears on Page 7 of your Agenda. Consent Agenda, Item C, on Page 3, DP 2008-48, JTC Property, Track 2, Lot 1A. This is an amended development plan for property at 2107 Sandersville Road. This appears at the bottom of Page 7, top of Page 8 of today's Agenda. Moving to Page 4 of the Consent Agenda, Item D, DP 2008-50, K. Michael Craven's Property, the lofts at 9191. This is amendment number 2 for property located at 991 Todd's Road. This property appears, or this plan I should say, appears on Page 8 of your Agenda today. Next item, E, DP 2008-52, Maple Leaf Subdivision, Unit 1, B6P, amended. An amended final development plan for property at 3140 and 3150 Maple Leaf Drive. This item appears at the top of Page 9 of your Agenda. Next item, F, DP 2008-62, Lake Point Subdivision, Block B, Lot 1, amended, for property at 2373 Lake Park Road. This item appears toward the bottom of Page 9 of your Agenda. Next item, DP 2008-63, Jericho Incorporated, Unit 1, Lot 1D, amended, for property at 3477 Yorkshire Boulevard. This is an amended final development plan that also appears on the bottom of Page 9 and the top of Page 10 on your Standard Agenda today. Moving to Page 5 of the Consent Agenda, the last item is DP 2008-30, Manchester Development, LLC, amended. An amended final development plan for property at 855 through 941 Manchester Street. This item appears on Page 10 of your Standard Agenda. Mr. Chairman, at this time the Commission may wish to consider deletions from either the Commission, from applicants, or perhaps from audience members to the Consent Agenda. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to any of the applications on the Consent Agenda as read by staff? Okay. Are there any applications that the Commission would like to see discussed as read by the staff? Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yes. Number H on Page 5, the Manchester Development, LLC. There's a note down below that last condition that says the applicant now requests a continued discussion of this plan to change the proposed uses on the property. I wondered if we could have staff elaborate. Sure. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. They are requesting a change on the plan, no physical change, but a use for some additional retail in the banquet facility in the warehouse portion of that plan. Question. Sure. Does that affect the parking? It will change the parking generator, yes, sir, and they will have to document compliance with the required parking before the plan can be certified. Is that, would you all like to discuss that one? Well, my problem would be crossing the street. If it has to have additional parking across the street, it would be my issue. Commission, would you like to hear that application? Okay, we will hear DP 2008-30, so if we could remove that from the consent agenda. Okay, I failed to mention the criteria for the consent agenda and would like to read that in for the record. The criteria is that the subdivision committee recommendation is for approval as listed on this agenda. And two, item two, the petitioner is in agreement with the subdivision committee recommendation and the conditions listed on the agenda. And item three, no discussion of the item as desired by the commission. Item four, no person present at this meeting objects to the commission acting on the matter without discussion. And lastly, item five, the matter does not involve a waiver of the land subdivision regulations. So with that said, I believe we have two applications on page three. DP 2008-36, Reserves of Walnut Grove, located at 3820 Hatfield Lane, was postponed. And the commission would like to hear DP 2008-30, Manchester Development, located at 855-941 Manchester Road. With that said, the chair at this time will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Chairman, before there's a motion made, if I could just comment. Yes, sir. The staff has not included any item on your consent agenda wherein the staff has a revised recommendation. We felt it important that you should review that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for approval of the consent agenda deleting DP 2008-36, Reserve of Walnut Grove, because it had been postponed, and DP 2008-30, Manchester Development, because we're going to hear that one. I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. We will now move into our discussion items. We'll give the staff a moment to. I would also like to say that we congratulate the subdivision committee for the effort that they put so that we didn't have to deal with each of these. Thank you. Duly noted. We'll be prepared to present the first plan to you in just a moment, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you. I think, is there any opposition to hearing the Manchester first since it was the one on the consent agenda? Or will we have to follow the original agenda? I think the order of the items remaining, Mr. Chairman, are to your prerogative. Okay. Commission, would you like to hear the Manchester first? I think so, yes. Okay. If we could hear the Manchester first, that would be good. We'll have a staff. Staff will make a brief presentation, then we'll call upon you, Mr. McNeese. Mr. Chairman, just a comment. I hope we keep the majority of the discussion on Manchester somewhat brief. Ms. Phillips' class is here today visiting with us, and I know they're on a tight, busy schedule and need to be back studying. So if we could keep that in mind. In the meantime, welcome them to a Planning Commission meeting. Those are your future planners in the future. Thank you, Mr. Mahan. Likewise, welcome to the students to a Planning Commission meeting. Can we release the bonds? Ms. Phillips would like to do the release and call of bonds. I've changed the subject here. Release and call. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to encourage the staff to release the bonds as listed on the memorandum to Chris Kane from Ron St. Clair, dated April 10th. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the release and call of bonds on our memorandum at our space. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. The motion carries. Thank you. I would like to take a moment to say that the Commission has been working for a number of months on developing the consent agenda. Today was our first attempt at that in an effort to expedite our meetings here and really focus our attention on those discussion items. If Mr. Dow Harper, our former chair, is watching, a huge thanks goes out to him for initiating this exercise. So we'll forge ahead, and I think it's a good process. I don't know. Mr. Markman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I apologize for the time it took to set up. We weren't sure if we were going to use the consent agenda today, so we had some other items that normally we wouldn't present to you. They could be sounded. But the first item you've requested to be heard is on page 10 of your agenda, M, DP 2008-30, Manchester Development, LLC. This is a continuing discussion item that's been brought back to you. As you all are aware, we have the development on Manchester Street. We have the plan, Newtown Extension. It will be coming through here. We have labeled here for you the original approval of Phase 1. This plan, when it was amended, was brought to you with the Phase 2. And here we have the elevation to explain that Phase 2, as you will recall, with the building and with parking. Now, the immediate emphasis on this, of course, will be the parking. The building will come later. Here is the parking on Pine Street across the street that is associated with this use. Here we have a nightclub, indoor recreation, warehouse and retail, nightclub and retail. And it is in this area where the warehouse, and this is actually a rendering of the old plan. The new plan merely changes the wording within this purple box to state retail and banquet facilities. There is a change in the parking generator, which, of course, they will have to meet in compliance with the plan. And it is met currently, as I understand it, with what is presented here. They are still working on some nightclubs, Board of Adjustment approval, which will require some off-site agreements. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin at this time? Thank you, sir. Petitioner? Hello, I'm Barry McNeese with Manchester Development. I just wanted to speak to the parking concerns. We understand that is a foremost issue for us. To give you an update, we're in the process of working with the Department of Transportation at the state level regarding installation of a crosswalk with flashing pedestrian lights in order to better facilitate safe traffic through there. We're also looking at attempting to do something to calm traffic through there. There's a significant problem as far as speed on that corridor. Our hope is that either by doing something decorative or something as approved by the Department of Transportation that we can aesthetically improve it, but also force folks to slow down, even while they acknowledge the fact that there are pedestrians there. So we're in process as far as that's concerned. We have secured additional parking, again, though it is on the other side of the street. We've run out of space on that side of the street. But we are moving toward that right now, and we've submitted a request for permit to the Department of Transportation and are working through that at the moment. Thank you, Mr. McNeese. Mr. Mahan, you have a question? You're adding some additional outdoor lighting in that area too, aren't you? I'm not sure who's adding it right now. It's going to be added. Right. We had an issue. There were two or three lights that were maintained by Kentucky Utilities, as I understand it, that were burned out. We called them, and last week those bulbs were replaced, which helps tremendously. But we are in discussion. I'm not sure whose responsibility it is, but there is a direction, whether it's us supplying that or someone else, in trying to better illuminate that area. Thank you, sir. Ms. Phillips? I have a question. When Newtown Pike crosses Manchester, it will not be at grade. It will be elevated. Right. Do you have an idea as to how much higher than Manchester it will be at that point? My understanding at this point, and we've been trying to work diligently in being a part of that conversation. There are elements of that discussion that we've not been privy to. Our understanding currently is that that elevation will be something like 10 to 12 feet above grade. But that's the best knowledge that I have right now. Okay. Mr. Penn? Yes. Show me where you're going to put the crosswalk in relationship to Pine Street. So it will be on the west side of Pine Street. That's correct. When the traffic analysis was done, it indicated that at least currently, because of the manner in which that street is used as a cut-through, that there was a vast amount of east side traffic with people turning from Manchester on to Pine Street. Right. But on the west side, the numbers dropped off significantly. Right. So the feeling was that the west side was the best position for that. That was my concern because Pine Street, the majority of that traffic turns right. And this area, there's a lot of discussion. I mean, the fact is that it's an evolving area. The Newtown Pike Extension and what it does to the traffic flow is going to dramatically impact the way that vehicles and pedestrians move through there. With the Department of Transportation, there's an ancillary conversation going on about the viability of even a stop sign at that location until things get worked out with the Newtown Pike Extension. We're told that there's a number of evolving conversations going on with the Newtown Pike Extension. And so our hope is to invest in what's necessary to make it a safe crossing without doing something that's going to be undone within a year. Thank you. Mr. Holmes, you had a question? Yeah, I just had one. Are you working with the Transportation Department for an access permit or traffic calming or what type of permit? It's actually for the crosswalk itself. Some of the questions involved actual sighting of the crosswalk and the type of warning device that goes in. There was some concern that had been expressed by LFUCG Engineering regarding the visibility of the placement of the flashing solar light that we had originally asked for approval on. So we're working through those issues, but we've actually applied for a crosswalk with flashing lights. And will they dictate any type of traffic calming? I don't think that they're going to dictate it. It's our ardent hope that they will be willing to talk with us about putting that in because we feel like it's for the benefit of that area. It's for the benefit of pedestrian safety. And so we hope that that will be a short conversation. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. McNeese? Thank you. Staff, do you have anything else you'd like to add? Just very briefly, and housekeeping, I'd just like to state for the record that you did approve this plan at your previous meeting, subject to those 16 conditions on the plan, and it is a continued discussion item. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, are there any questions, comments from the commission? If not, chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2008-30 with the 16 conditions as noted. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 4, item G, plan 2008-39F, Newtown Springs, unit 2A, lot 1 amended. And let me apologize for the small scale here. The consent agenda, as I said, we weren't sure we'd be using it today, and this item normally could be sounded. And yes, Mr. Chairman, the gold sheet that we handed out are the revised conditions on this plan. I'll briefly orient you to the plan. Newtown Springs Drive comes here and intersects Citation Boulevard with Newtown Pike in this direction. Here, and again, Citation. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide an existing lot into three lots. This lot was the display home lot for Beezer Homes. And if you look at your conditions, you'll see that those are standard conditions with the exception of 10 and 11. And 10 was just staff had concern about the placement of the driveway, particularly on lot 1, relative to Citation. It is in this area. It is on the lot. And that leads us to the next condition, which is resolve the removal of the existing parking lot use prior to the certification. On lot number 1, there's currently a parking lot. Now, that use is not allowable in this particular zone. And that condition was worked out yesterday, and why you have a revised sheet. So that's the plan and the purpose of the revision that we wish to bring to your attention. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin at this time? You said there's a revised plan that resolves that driveway location and the parking lot? As a matter of fact, they exist, and we do believe that it will work, yes. I believe what will happen, and we've talked to them, is that this one being established here, as far back as it can go, will probably result in a double right here. So they'll be side by side. So approval should be based on that revision, then? Yes, ma'am. You can base your approval off this, and we can resolve it. And then that would take care of the revised plan? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martin at this time? Is the applicant present? Mr. Chairman, Laura Watchter with Strand Associates. We're in agreement with the revised staff recommendation and all the conditions and would like to request approval. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Okay. Thank you. Seeing none, at this time, does anyone from the commission have any questions for the petitioner? All right. Staff has provided a revised recommendation for Plan 2008-39F on the Goldenrod Sheet. Subdivision committee recommended approval subject to 11 conditions. Chair, at this time, we'll obtain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2008-39F with 11 conditions. We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page 8, Development Plan 2008-49 Larkin Property, which is located on Spur Road. And you will see you have a blue handout. That sheet are the revised recommendations on this plan. This is the final development plan that has been submitted since you just saw the zone change recently on the Larkin property. This is the beer distributorship for which they presented to you the zone change just recently. It is located on Spur Road with the frontage proposed innovation drive here. The warehouse is outlined here in purple. This area is 145,500 square feet of warehouse. They have a little over 20,000 square feet of office space. There's a vehicle maintenance structure proposed here. It is just a little under 12,000 square feet. You have an access point here. You have an access point here, which is a drive-through for delivery trucks. They drive them in, load them up, and they drive on out. Here you have another access point into this parking. And this plan, which is a revision from the original plan where they moved the building, the building originally was in this area, and they've moved it over here and made some slight adjustments to the square footage and to the layout. This is new, for instance, this drive-through. They show an access point to Spur Road in this location. Again, we have detention here and here proposed. I'm going to place something up real quick. This is a little bit larger, big picture of the area. I wanted to orient you again. You can see this is the property in purple, Spur Road with their frontage. Here is Innovation Drive as it's currently constructed, and this is the extension. And again, you can see it here on their proposed development plan. This, as you can see here, is this that's proposed to serve this area. You can see Spur Road with its curve. Here's Lindley School, Spur Road. This is Greendale. Here and here are entrances that have been approved on a preliminary plan for the Ramsey Sullivan residential development. Here's your railroad. And as I pointed out, Greendale residential area. Here's Lucille Drive. Lucille Drive, of course, will eventually work its way through Masterson Station developments and over to Lee's Town. Tom, I need to interrupt. I didn't realize this particular application was coming up, and I have a conflict. Yes, sir. I need to disqualify myself and would like to turn the meeting over to Ms. Gottfried at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you. Okay, we'll denote that the chairman has stepped down and left the room, and I will be taking over the meeting. You can continue. Thank you. And again, I will continue with your orientation to this area. We have Georgetown Road, Citation Boulevard. Here's Jaggie Fox coming up through here. I would add, of course, that Georgetown is an arterial street, as is Citation Boulevard. Jaggie Fox Way is a collector. Spur Road, Greendale, and Lucille Road are all also collectors. Innovation is a local street. This is the approximate area on this plan where they are requesting this access point. The subdivision committee did review this plan and recommended approval, and as we've pointed out to you, there's been a couple of revisions to the plan. The conditions are fairly standard. As you can see, number 12, resolve and or denote the timing for construction of innovation, has always been an issue out here for staff, and we've presented all the plans to you that way. And again, the big-ass fans development was we had considerable discussion there about this. We have handed out to you a memo from Commerce Lexington. Where they address the timing issue for innovation. And then item 13, where we have stated right-of-way dedication and or necessary improvements to Spur Road are subject to the approval of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet prior to certification of this plan, and that those improvements are to be identified on this development plan. And again, that is the new condition that we added because of this request on to Spur Road. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Yes, with this sheet, does that mean that number 12 has been taken care of or we still need to leave it as resolve instead of delete? I believe we would request that a note on the timing reflecting that memorandum go on the plan. We just received that this morning, by the way, and we wanted to give it to you. It is addressed to you, and we certainly welcome that. I think that will prove very useful to you as the planning commission. But staff sees no harm in going ahead and denoting something on the plan that addresses the issue. These things are subject to change, obviously, and if you read the memo, you'll see they're requesting some assistance with financing and that sort of thing. So obviously that time frame may vary. So we need to leave both, okay. Yes, ma'am, we would recommend that. All righty. Any other questions of the staff? Okay, if not, we'll hear from the applicant. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Let's see. A little flustered here. I wanted to clarify something, I guess, with staff on item 13. It talks about the right-of-way dedication and or necessary improvements. I wanted to make sure that meant that all we had to do was know what the state wanted and showed that we didn't actually have to have it constructed or dedicated prior to certification. I would just elaborate that the condition states that we want Kentucky Department of Transportation approval of any necessary improvements and the dedication to be shown on this plan prior to certification. That's what we're asking for. So you're asking for the approval. We're asking for approval of said improvements, if necessary. Not the actual dedication. No, we're not asking for actual dedication. No, this wouldn't be the proper mechanism for that. Right. And item 12, I'd like to at least read to you guys the note that we have proposed for. I'd like to do away with item 12, and this is the note we have put on the plan. Permanent vehicular access to spur road shall not be constructed until innovation drive is dedicated. Essentially what this would do is it would let the process start on this piece of ground. There's an existing driveway. They can do their construction activity. And this access point would not be constructed in such time so that essentially we've got the property stopped. We have to have innovation drive come in or we have to come back to you guys. The resolve note is a little leery for me. I'd like something more concrete. So, Roy, what you're telling me is that innovation drive will be operational before that business is allowed to be operational? Yeah, as we went through this as a subdivision committee, we talked about different mechanisms that would key in when everything would function. And we talked about occupancy permits, building permits, and what the timing mechanism would be. As you read this letter, the Commerce Lexington people are trying to get that road built. The plans have been to bid. They want to get this done. Clearly the distribution center needs innovation drive to be built, and we're going to push to get this certification done quickly. So the resolve and denote timing of construction of innovation drive, we were trying to come up with something that we could put on the table and everyone would see what it was up front and could agree to it. So this note was put on there. If we get down to the point and innovation drive's not there, we're going to have to come back to you guys and work out something new because where's the trucks going to go? That's exactly right. You can't have those trucks going in and out the existing access. Yeah. As you come around the curve here, you've got your first commercial entrance, and then you have the one that's actually within the structure itself. That's the side-loaded panel trucks. That's that one. And then as you go further up innovation drive, you've got up near the offices, and it's pedestrian vehicles. And then you have the one access off Spur Road, which at the parking lot would essentially be for that pedestrian or non-commercial use most likely. It's only 24 feet wide. But if there is something jamming up one of the entrance points, you would have a second way out. Okay. And maybe it's not for you. It's just Commerce Lexington's leather. Do you know if it's their intent to build a road or are they going to build a road? From reading this, it says it's their intent contingent upon some funding being in place. Yeah. I think that's it. It's contingent upon them raising the funds. Yeah. They said they're going to begin construction. They've let the vids? 150 days. I'm a little confused with the letter. That's my question. In terms of leaving this resolved with the note, because it's still kind of gray. Yes. I've come to be afraid of gray. I know, but we didn't create the gray. The gray is here. I don't know if we can fix it for you. Right. We can't go. Madam Chair, if I could just comment on Mr. Kaley's request. The note on the development plan would be sufficient if there were no access proposed to spur road on this plan. That would indicate a potential future desire for access and the necessary steps that would take place to get that access issue back before the Planning Commission. I think the staff's uncertainty with the request is meaning this is a final development plan and the access would be approved on your plan, that there would be a potential for either the Highway Department or some other entity to approve the construction of that access point even with the note there. So I think that's the core of the issue and why we would like Condition 12 to remain. It's all up to you guys. We'd like approval and move forward as fast as we can. I guess if we have a problem with the resolve and that note, I guess we'd be back before you as well anyway. Any other questions for Mr. Kaley? All righty. Mr. Chair, or Ms. Chair, one thought that I had in hearing the note was that it sounded like there could be permanent access to Spur after innovation is dedicated. But dedication is not construction. So I think that may be what Mr. Salih is getting at, that we've got a proposal that shows access to Spur and the only thing that's going to tie it is dedication of another road, not construction of another road. So you may need to think on that. Are you suggesting that on Note 12 that it could be revised to better address? Well, perhaps if you keep Note 12, maybe my issue is not as great. But if you were going to go along with just the note, I see a potential. If somebody wants to address it and tell me it's not a loophole, okay. But it seems to me like it might be a loophole, where you've got access until the road is dedicated, but you're still going to have the access because there's not going to be another way to go. Any other questions or comments? All right. If you finish, we'll see if there's any comments or questions from the audience. Anybody else? Okay, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Tom Blues. I represent the second district on the Urban County Council. And I wanted to address the issues of the Numbers 12 and the added Condition 13, which the staff recommends. As you're aware, the spur road at the point where this facility will be constructed is heavily traveled. It's very narrow and is increasingly burdened with traffic. So it really is extremely important that as you go forward with this petition and this application, that all measures are taken to ensure that there is not further congestion and danger on that narrow piece of country road, which is increasingly urbanized. So Number 13 is, I think, extraordinarily important here so that the state will have an opportunity to assess the conditions and impose whatever changes that might be necessary in the roadway. I would also add that at this point right here, at Spur and in Georgetown, there have been many more accidents and there is no signal. The intersection gets increasingly dangerous. The state has been reluctant to install a traffic signal there. So we have a lot of traffic issues and I think that that's the reason that Number 12 and Number 13 in particular are important. So I would just urge you to consider those seriously as you go forward with this application. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Any other comments? If not, I guess we'll close the hearing to the commission. And it's open for discussion among the commission members now. You know, Ben, the use of that facility and innovation drive is very critical to that plan. And I just don't think it's prudent for us to, I know what Rory is trying to do there, but I just don't think it's prudent for us to do away with Number 12 and rely on the note on the development plan. And if you're going to make that facility work where it comes out on Spur Road at the present location, without innovation drive it just wouldn't work. So I urge the commission to leave 12 and 13 as it is. If there's no further discussion, why don't we make a motion, but I'll yield to see if there's any other discussion. Any further discussion? Mr. Penn, would you like to make a motion? Madam Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2008-49 subject to the 13 conditions as appeared on the blue sheet. We have a motion and a second to approve DP 2008-49, locked in property located at 2580 Spur Road with the 13 conditions noticed on the staff's regards report. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Somebody notify Chairman Rodin. I want to note that the Vice Chair is stepping down and the Chairman is back. Yeah, something like that. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your chairing the meeting due to my disqualification on that application. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda, page 9, item J, DP 2008-53, LP WIT business subdivision, unit 1, lot 6, and unit 1A, lots 7 and 9. This is a development plan on a piece of property that's out at the intersection of Versailles Road and Porter Place. You can see by the vicinity map it's just a little beyond Angliana Intersection with Versailles Road or High Street. It reflects a desire to build a new structure here that will straddle a B3 and a B4 zone. Here is an existing building. Here is an existing storage area. This is an existing storage area with parking as you can see here. The existing entrance off Versailles is here and there's an existing access as well off of Porter Place. This is to be approximately 6,400 square foot building. The existing one is a little over 7,000 square feet. You have a gold sheet or yellow, I should say, you already have a gold sheet with revised staff recommendations on this plan. When this plan was originally reviewed and presented to the subdivision committee, they recommended postponement. The concern was the use of this property. As it had been explained to us and the applicant had written a letter, there was some concern. They had stated that there were agricultural uses on the property. That situation was reviewed in a site visit by building inspection. They have determined that the uses on this property do in fact meet the requirements of the ordinance. Therefore, you can see that on your conditions, we have changed item 12, instead of discuss the uses, to document the uses. We have also asked that they clarify the non-conforming factory use prior to certification. We do have some preliminary information on that that could have an impact on the parking. Obviously, we're always concerned about any expansion of a non-conforming use, so we just want to be very clear. The other two, 14 and 15, we are asking that they denote on the plan that the gravel storage yard be paved and that no outdoor storage be allowed. That storage yard, in effect, will go away as a storage yard. It's not an allowable use in this zone. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Petitioner? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Andy Holmes with Midwest Engineering. I'm representing the applicant here. Everything Mr. Martin said is correct, and we have no objections to the conditions listed. We did clarify that there is no factory use on the property, but we have no objection to leaving the condition as part of the motion, if that's your pleasure. The gravel storage lot is in the upper right-hand corner of the site on the plan there. There's no objection to paving that, and it would probably become part of the parking lot. And then the storage items that are stored there now would be moved to the indoor storage portions of the building that are on the site now. And then that parking would account for the storage use. So there's no objection to any of the conditions proposed. Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Holmes? Ms. Phelps? Mr. Holmes, when you pave that gravel lot, will that kick you into any kind of stormwater detention requirements? It may. It's a very small area, and what we have to do is look at the downstream drainage system that receives flow from those areas and just ensure that they have adequate capacity. And we'll do that. We do that on every development that we do, and we can work that out with engineering under the conditions that are already listed. But we will have to investigate that and account for it. Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr. Holmes? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this application? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close this portion of the hearing and turn it over to the Commission for any further questions, comments, or motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP-2008-53 with the conditions listed. 15 on the yellow sheet. Okay. We have a motion and second to approve DP-2008-53 with revised conditions on the yellow sheet. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. I believe that concludes our applications for today. Is that correct, Mr. Salih? At this time, staff, do you have any additional things you'd like to bring forward? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to stall for just a little bit of time as the Council went to get something to pass out to you and discuss with you briefly. Okay. But I just want to mention that we do have a work session scheduled for next week, a week from today. I would want to indicate we had discussed before that one of the main items on that may be the engineering review process and consent decree and those related items. However, your Ad Hoc Committee, which has had two very intense and productive meetings, has agreed that that's not quite ready to bring to you, and so that will be coming along in May. And I didn't know if any of the members that have been involved in the Ad Hoc Committee wanted to just give you a little briefing on anything at this point. Mr. Finn? I'll just echo what Chris has said. We had a very frank and, I think, productive exchange. I think when we do come in May, the consent decree will be maybe not understood by everybody but a little bit easier to digest. It's a lot of information, and it's fair to say, I think, Chris, that we will be doing things a tad bit differently because of the consent decree, and we all need to understand what that means. And I certainly think we need to put it off until May. I don't think we're ready to come yet. I'll defer to some of the other members. Ms. Phillips? Yeah. Frank started out by saying that we've had two very frank meetings, and easy for him to be frank. I don't think I can ever be as frank as Frank. You know, if we get things done, I think we are at a point, and Chris and Mike and Randall and Frank can back me up on this, I think we're still at a stage of really identifying specifically what all the issues are. And it's just gargantuan, but not untenable. And I hope that we have stuff ready to come before the commission in May, but if it takes another month for us to create a list in our own minds and resolve some issues, then I think it's going to be well worth waiting the additional time. And I guess, Mike, do you have anything? I would echo what Lynn is saying. It very well may take an additional month. We want to make sure that it's clear in our mind before we come before you all. And it is somewhat monumental, but I think there's a learning process along the way, and actually in this case a relearning process along the way in how we can do things better going forward. So I think that was our main objective. So we're working hard at it. We were running a little bit late getting over here today because we were working with the Ad Hoc Committee. So please bear with us. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that I would rather see you, instead of trying to rush through those recommendations and trying to meet a time frame of May or June, because it's too important to bring it to us if you're not prepared. So I would just echo my concerns. Let's make sure that the Ad Hoc Committee has a fair understanding of it before bringing it to us. Excellent. Thank you. Duly noted. Mr. King. I see counsel has returned, so I can turn the microphone over to him. I'm very sorry. I'm also sorry to have to tell you you've been sued again. It's on the Sand Lake property. I think many of you had already seen in different committees and mentioned that to you. I did want to have copies here in case those of you that wanted to pick up your copy could have it to go, and I forgot to bring those with me, and I apologize for the delay. Thank you. Are there any additional items from the staff? Just one, Mr. Chairman. We still have some audience members. We may or may not have an audience item today. Yes. Do we have any audience items? My apologies. Okay. Well, I do want to thank the class members that did attend today. It's always good to see firsthand the process at which we operate, and as I think Mr. Mahan said, our planners of the future. So we wish you all the best. Okay. At this time, any other commission items? If not, by December he'll be right for Santa Claus, won't he? I'm shooting for Santa Claus. All right. The chair will entertain a motion for adjournment. All right. We're adjourned.