# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - October 11, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 11, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4609 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4609?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-10-11 - **Last revised**: October 11, 2018 - **Length**: 8,098 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on October 11, 2018, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Frank Penn presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed seven agenda items during the session, all of which received approval, demonstrating a productive meeting focused on various development and zoning matters throughout Lexington-Fayette County. The approved items included several significant development projects: Fuller Et. Al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center Unit 1, Tuscany Unit 12, Beaumont Forest Unit 2 (KMSF Parking Expansion), James Motor Company & Kathryn M McBrayer Property, Stonewall Shopping Center, Masterson Station Unit 8-B Section 2 Lot 1 (Lexington Tabernacle, Inc), and Fuller Et. Al. Property Lot 3 (Meadowthorpe Community Business Center). These approvals encompassed a diverse range of projects including commercial developments, residential units, parking expansions, and religious facilities. The commission conducted 11 motions and votes throughout the meeting to address the various agenda items and procedural matters. No public comments were recorded during this session, indicating either limited public attendance or no requests from citizens to address the commission. The meeting's efficiency in approving all seven agenda items suggests the proposals were well-prepared and met the necessary planning and zoning requirements for the Urban County area. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on October 11, 2018: • William Wilson • Headley Bell • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Bruce Nicol • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eleven motions, all of which passed unanimously with all ten members present voting in favor. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2018 meeting, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 10-0. **Development Plan Postponements** Several development plans were postponed to November 8, 2018: • **PLN-MJDP-18-00078** [timestamp: 02:00]: Lexington Clinic (La Belle Subdivision, Unit 1) postponement motioned by Karen Mundy, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Passed unanimously 10-0. • **PLN-MJDP-18-00081** [timestamp: 06:00]: Leestown Industrial Park, Unit 3 postponement motioned by Larry Forester, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Passed unanimously 10-0. • **PLN-MJDP-18-00076** [timestamp: 08:00]: Blackford Property, Phase 3 postponement motioned by Karen Mundy, seconded by Headley Bell. Passed unanimously 10-0. • **PLN-MJDP-18-00075** [timestamp: 10:00]: Willow Oak Shopping Center (Millpond Center) postponement motioned by Mike Owens, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously 10-0. • **PLN-MJDP-17-00070** [timestamp: 12:00]: Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties postponement motioned by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed unanimously 10-0. **Other Actions** • **PLN-MJDP-18-00061** [timestamp: 04:00]: Southern & Jones Property, LLC withdrawal motioned by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously 10-0. • **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 14:00]: Patrick Brewer motioned approval, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed unanimously 10-0. • **PLN-MJSUB-18-00030** [timestamp: 16:00]: Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 16 subdivision approval motioned by Karen Mundy, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously 10-0, subject to conditions including Urban County Engineer's acceptance of drainage and sewer systems. • **Performance Bonds Release** [timestamp: 18:00]: Mike Owens motioned, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed unanimously 10-0. • **Work Session Cancellation** [timestamp: 20:00]: Mike Owens motioned to cancel the October 18, 2018 work session. Passed unanimously 10-0. All voting members present were William Wilson, Headley Bell, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, Bruce Nicol, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Plumlee. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item regarding the appointment process for a vacancy on the Planning Commission. The disagreement centered on procedural questions about how to proceed with filling the vacant position. Council members debated whether the body should wait for the mayor's recommendation before moving forward or begin the appointment process independently without mayoral input. The nature of the dispute was procedural rather than substantive, focusing on the proper sequence of steps in the appointment process and the respective roles of the mayor and council in filling commission vacancies. The extracted data does not include specific details about which council members took which positions in the debate, the specific arguments made by each side, or how the disagreement was ultimately resolved. No transcript timestamps were provided for this contested item. ## Fuller Et. Al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Unit 1 [timestamp: 22:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJSUB-17-00003, a reapproval request for the Fuller Et. Al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Unit 1 subdivision plan. The proposal involves subdividing one lot from two existing lots. Traci Wade presented the item to the commission, explaining that this was a reapproval of a previously considered subdivision plan. The subdivision would be subject to the same conditions that were approved in the original approval. The commission discussed the subdivision plan, which had already undergone review and received approval with specific conditions attached. Since this was a reapproval rather than a new application, the focus was on confirming that the previously established conditions would remain in effect for the subdivision process. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. The straightforward nature of the reapproval, combined with the existing framework of approved conditions, facilitated a smooth review process. The commission approved the reapproval of the subdivision plan for the Fuller Et. Al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Unit 1, maintaining all previously approved conditions for the subdivision of one lot from the two existing lots. ## Tuscany, Unit 12 [timestamp: 24:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJSUB-18-00033 for Tuscany, Unit 12, which involved approval of a preliminary subdivision plan to denote proposed lotting of property. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting this subdivision proposal to the commission. The item focused on the preliminary subdivision planning process, which establishes the proposed layout and division of lots within the development area. The commission considered the subdivision plan and any associated conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval process. Preliminary subdivision plans typically address factors such as lot configuration, access, utilities, and compliance with local zoning and development standards. Following discussion of the proposal, the commission approved the preliminary subdivision plan for Tuscany, Unit 12, subject to conditions. This approval allows the project to move forward in the development process while ensuring that specific requirements and standards are met during subsequent phases of the project. The approval of this preliminary subdivision plan represents a standard step in the municipal development review process, establishing the framework for how the property will be divided and developed while maintaining appropriate oversight through conditional approval requirements. ## Beaumont Forest, Unit 2 (KMSF Parking Expansion) [timestamp: 26:00] The commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-18-00072 for the Beaumont Forest, Unit 2 development plan, specifically addressing a parking expansion for KMSF. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the commission. The proposal involved approval of a development plan focused on expanding parking facilities as part of the Beaumont Forest, Unit 2 project. The commission discussed the merits of the parking expansion plan and evaluated whether it met the necessary requirements for approval. The development plan was presented as a straightforward expansion project designed to address parking needs in the area. Following their review and discussion of the application materials, the commission voted to approve the development plan. The approval was granted subject to specific conditions, though the exact details of those conditions were not specified in the available materials. The approval of PLN-MJDP-18-00072 allows the Beaumont Forest, Unit 2 parking expansion project to move forward with the KMSF development, contingent upon meeting the established conditions set forth by the commission. ## James Motor Company & Kathryn M McBrayer Property [timestamp: 28:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00074, a development plan amendment for the James Motor Company & Kathryn M McBrayer Property. The proposal sought approval to add 157 new parking spaces and revise the existing site layout. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting the amendment to the commission. The development plan amendment focused on expanding parking capacity and reorganizing the current site configuration to accommodate the additional spaces. The commission considered the proposal as part of their regular review process for development plan modifications. The amendment represented a significant expansion of parking infrastructure, with the 157 new spaces constituting a substantial increase to the property's parking capacity. Following their review and discussion of the proposal, the commission approved the development plan amendment. The approval was granted subject to conditions, though the specific conditions were not detailed in the available information. The approval allows James Motor Company and Kathryn M McBrayer to proceed with implementing the revised site layout and constructing the additional parking spaces according to the amended development plan. The project will need to comply with all applicable conditions attached to the approval as the development moves forward. ## Stonewall Shopping Center [timestamp: 30:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00077 for the Stonewall Shopping Center, which involved approval of a development plan amendment to add square footage and review parking and pedestrian facilities. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting the item to the commission. The proposal centered on modifying the existing development plan to accommodate additional square footage at the shopping center location. The review process included an examination of the site's parking capacity and pedestrian infrastructure to ensure the proposed expansion would meet current standards and adequately serve increased traffic and foot traffic generated by the additional square footage. The commission evaluated whether the existing facilities could support the proposed changes or if modifications would be necessary. The development plan amendment was subject to specific conditions, though the exact details of these conditions were not specified in the available materials. These conditions likely addressed parking requirements, pedestrian safety measures, and other site development standards typical for commercial expansion projects. Following discussion and review of the proposal, the commission approved the development plan amendment for the Stonewall Shopping Center. The approval allows the project to move forward with the proposed square footage addition, contingent upon meeting the established conditions. The approval represents a modification to the existing commercial development that will expand the shopping center's capacity while ensuring compliance with municipal planning and development standards for parking and pedestrian access. ## Masterson Station, Unit 8-B, Sec 2, Lot 1 (Lexington Tabernacle, Inc) [timestamp: 32:00] The Planning Commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-18-00080 for a development plan amendment at Masterson Station, Unit 8-B, Section 2, Lot 1, submitted by Lexington Tabernacle, Inc. The proposal sought approval to revise the building and parking layout from the previously approved development plan. Traci Wade presented the application, which involved modifications to the site design for the religious facility. The amendment was necessary to accommodate changes to the building configuration and associated parking arrangements on the property. The Commission discussed the revised layout and its compliance with applicable zoning requirements and development standards. The proposal was evaluated against the existing conditions and requirements for the Masterson Station development. Following review and discussion, the Planning Commission approved the development plan amendment. The approval was granted subject to specific conditions that must be met during the development process. The outcome allows Lexington Tabernacle, Inc. to proceed with construction according to the revised building and parking layout as depicted in the amended development plan, provided all attached conditions are satisfied. ## Fuller Et., Al., Property, Lot 3 (Meadowthorpe Community Business Center) [timestamp: 34:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00051, a reapproval request for a development plan for mini warehouses at Lot 3 of the Meadowthorpe Community Business Center. Traci Wade presented the item to the commission, explaining that this was a reapproval of a previously approved development plan for mini warehouse facilities. The proposal was subject to the same conditions that had been established during the original approval process. The development plan involves the construction of mini warehouse storage units on the designated lot within the Meadowthorpe Community Business Center. As a reapproval, the project had already undergone the full review process and met all necessary requirements during its initial consideration. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this item. The straightforward nature of the reapproval, combined with the fact that it maintained the same conditions as the original approval, contributed to a smooth review process. The commission approved the reapproval of the development plan for the mini warehouses, allowing the project to move forward under the previously established conditions and requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of the minutes of the September 13, 2018, meeting - **PLN-MJDP-18-00078** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Lexington Clinic (La Belle Subdivision, Unit 1) to November 8, 2018 - **PLN-MJDP-18-00061** — withdrawn (10-0): Withdrawal of Southern & Jones Property, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-18-00081** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Leestown Industrial Park, Unit 3 to November 8, 2018 - **PLN-MJDP-18-00076** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Blackford Property, Phase 3 to November 8, 2018 - **PLN-MJDP-18-00075** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Willow Oak Shopping Center (Millpond Center) to November 8, 2018 - **PLN-MJDP-17-00070** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties to November 8, 2018 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items - **PLN-MJSUB-18-00030** — passed (10-0): Approval of Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 16 subdivision - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Release of performance bonds - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Cancellation of the October 18, 2018, work session --- ## Full transcript I'm dreaming my life away. I need you so that I could die. I love you so. And that is why whenever I want you, all I have to do is dream. Dream, dream, dream, dream. Dream, dream, dream, dream. I don't want to be a tiger Cause tigers play too rough I don't wanna be a lion Cause lions ain't the kind you love enough But as a woman of you Oh, tell me back Put a chain around my neck And leave me anywhere Oh, let me be Oh, let me be Oh, tell me back Oh, baby, let me be Run you every night Run you famous The End The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Yes, sir. Tell us who you are. Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, my name is John Carmen representing the Lexington Clinic. I would refer you to page 5, item H. This is for a final development plan and we are requesting a one-month postponement. All right, sir. The applicant's request a one-month postponement. What's the date of that this way? November 8th? November the 8th? Is there anybody in the audience that wants to speak to this postponement? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Karen. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PONMJDP 18-78 Lexington Clinic for the reason stated by the applicant. Okay. Postion has been made and seconded. All those in favor, vote when it comes up on the screen. Do you have your postponement? Thank you, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Taylor Steele. I'm with Southern and Jones Properties, LLC. If you turn to page 3, PLN, MJDP, 180061, 530 Marino Street. We are seeking a withdrawal. We have come up with a solution that maintains the density with one building and have received a variance this week, so we no longer will need to go down the final development plan. Okay. The applicants ask for withdrawal of PLN 1861. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this one? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, move withdrawal of plan PLN MJDP 1861 Southern and Jones property. Okay. Second of Mr. Forrester. All those in favor say aye. Or vote when it cuts up on the screens where I should have seen it. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Any other? Matt Carter. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn in the agenda to page 6, item J, PLN, MJDP 18-00081, Lee's Town Industrial Park, Unit 3, request one month postponement. I need that time to talk with the staff over some access issues. Okay. so i believe it's the november 8th hearing that postpone for thank you for your reasons anybody in the audience want to comment on this one not vote when it comes up on the screen yeah i'll make a motion okay i'm gonna make a motion for pln-18-81 for one month postponement okay you have a motion seconded by mr plumley vote when it comes up on the screen Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. We'll postpone a couple of them if we can. On page 4, item F, Major Development Plan 18-76, Blackford Property, Phase 3. We have a discussion item on the connectivity and the greenway, so we request a one-month postponement to November 8th. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this one? The Chair will entertain a motion. Ms. Bundy. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PONMJDP 18-76 Blackford Property Phase 3 amended for the recent stated by the applicant. Okay. For one month. For one month. Thank you. Vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you, Roy. What else do you have? The item right above that is Major Development Plan 18-75 Willow Oak Shopping Center. There's a revision to this drawing that we've been asked to do, look at, so we need one more month for that if we could postpone to November 8th. Okay. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this one? Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Owen? Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of Plan MJDP 18-75 Willow Shopping Center. Motion made. For one month until November the 18th. All right, sir. Motion made. November 8th. Seconded, Mr. Forrester. Vote when it comes up on the screen. Is that it? Thank you. Thank you. Any further withdrawals, postponements? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Staff has an item to bring to your attention. We had anticipated the applicant's representative would be here. They do not appear to be present. They did come to your subdivision committee meeting and inform the subdivision committee that they wish to postpone it. So with that, I would bring your attention to page two. Item A, under development plans. This is Major Development Plan 17-70, Zandale Shopping Center and Greenleaf Motor Lodge properties as amended, located at 2280 Nicholsville Road. And I would just bring to the commission's attention that, again, they were at the subdivision committee where they informed the committee that they wished a one-month postponement. So that will be November the 8th? Yes, sir. Going to be a busy day. all right sure anybody else want to comment on this one not the chair will entertain them of mr. Plumlee mr. chair request postpone of PLN MJDP 1770 as requested by the applicant at subdivision committee okay second by mr. brewer though when it comes up on the screen I don't know. Is that what you wish for? Okay. Let's postpone. Mr. Chair, I'd like to brain and gross on behalf of the applicant. Apologize for being late. There was an accident on Winchester Road, so I had to go back to the interstate, come in. So my apologies. But that's what I wanted. so it worked out well that's quite all right we're glad you glad you made it here thank you sir and i'll see you guys next month that's what we're here yeah appreciate it all right moving on the consent agenda this way vice mayor our vice chairman penn the um there are a number of items on our consent agenda this afternoon there are two subdivision items and then five development plans that would qualify to be considered on the consent agenda so i will read through those and then ask if there's anyone present who would like to have those plans presented or discussed in more detail the first item appears on page two and it is item b under final subdivision plans. This is a re-approval request for PLN MJ SUB 17-3 for Fuller Atoll property and Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Unit 1 amended, for property located at 1315, 1317, 1325, and 1353 West Main Street. the next item is also on page two and it appears under the preliminary subdivision plans page two item a pln mj sub 18-33 for tuscany unit 12 amended this is for property or a portion of property located at 1970 winchester road moving on to the development plans the first development plan does appear on page three it is item C PLN MJ DP 1872 Beaumont Forest unit 2 KMSF parking expansion for property located at 2405 Greats Point Greats Stone Point in Lexington the next item is on page 3 item D PLN MJ DP 18 74 for James Motor Company and Catherine M. McBrayer property amended for property located at 2440 Richmond Road and 2350 Lake Park Road. Our next item is on page four, item G. That's PLN MJDP 18-77 for Stonewall Shopping Center, and that's also an amended final development plan for property located at 3101 clays mill road the next item appears on page five and it is item i it is pln mjdp 18-80 for masterson station unit 8b section 2 lot 1 for lexington tabernacle incorporated this is also an amended development plan for property located at 130 ferndale pass and then lastly on page six item K this is also a request for a re-approval for PLN MJDP 17-51 and this is associated with the plat that appears at the top of the page for Fuller at all property lot three Meadowthorpe Community Business Center for property located at 30 1321 West Main Street at this time I would ask if anyone in the audience wishes to have any of these items heard or if any member of the Planning Commission would like to have any of these items presented by the staff today seeing none the Planning Commission can consider all of these items with one motion at this time okay so the chair needs a motion to to approve the consent agenda is read mr. chairman I move for approval to consent to den thank you motion been made and seconded vote when it comes up on the screen. All right, sir. So we're moving back to page one. Is that right, Mr. Martin? Final subdivision plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, The remaining item on your agenda is on page one. It's a final subdivision plan. This is a major subdivision plan 18-30. It's Sharkey property, unit one, lot 16. This is a proposal to subdivide an existing lot, lot 16, in this location at the corner of Sharkey Way, and then Town Center Drive in the Sharkey development. It's at that intersection as Town Center Drive comes into the property at that Sharkey Way intersection and then extends on through the development. You recently approved a development plan on this property for a coffee shop with a drive-through. That approval also required a trip to the Board of Adjustment for the setback on this property to Zone B1. This is a simple subdivision. They're creating two lots, one at just under .7 acres, the other one at a little over .3 acres, in order to develop the coffee shop that you have approved. Their wish and their purpose for the waiver request is to coordinate the provision of the sanitary sewer and the site development with the construction of the coffee shop. And as you have heard in these discussions, that is not an unusual waiver in that sense. That's been granted several times by this body in order to allow them to coordinate construction. And the important item to note, as your staff informs you every time we have one of these, the key to it is that they have a development plan that controls the site that they're allowed to draw permits off of and build from. So with that, staff has reviewed that. We've discussed it briefly with the Division of Engineering. Staff has no concerns and is recommending approval of the waiver as well as the PLAT. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions, Mr. Martin? Applicant? Again, Rory Kaley at the A-Partners. We're in agreement with Tom's presentation and request approval. Right, excuse me. So you're good with the conditions and everything? Yes, we like these. Yes. My goodness, you're a congenial bunch today. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. We'll turn it over to the commission then. Karen? Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLNMJ 18-30, Cherokee Property Unit 1, Lot 16, amended with the waiver as provided. Second by Mr. Forrester. Any other discussion? Chair, vote when it comes up. Thank you. Thank you. Goodness, we're on record here. Mr. Martin, we have anything else? no sir i believe you've covered it today well we have we have performance bonds in the letter well yes sir i i think in terms of plans and development plans that's what i was referring to all right okay you're going to do that mr chair i'm going to move for release of call bonds motion has been made to release the call on violence motion made a second by patrick brewer all in favor vote when it comes on the screen okay now we also have to approve the official meet and filing schedules for 2019 i will contend that this is probably the most confusing piece of paper i ever had to try to interpret but it's the same every year and after this many years i'm kind of used to it but this way do you have anything you want to comment at this point it's just a draft so if there's any comments we'd be happy to accept those if anyone wants to go through and check all my dates be happy to let you do that anybody have any questions to miss wade of this this will officially be on your docket for the end of october for adoption usually we give everybody an opportunity to look at it before we adopt it i will note that that there are two changes from last year so it does typically look very similar um we added the color rendering that we've been asking the applicants to provide for the planning commission as part of the deadlines included on the schedule so that now appears as long as along with their revisions when they submit revisions two days before the planning Commission meetings they are also to submit a color rendering if we expect it to be something that's discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and then the other change has to do with our continued discussions re-approvals and extensions so you had two re-approvals today when we amended the subdivision regulations to allow final record plats to just go to our technical committee and not have to come to the Planning Commission we did not amend the filing schedule so what was happening was they would file for their extension or reapproval on technical committee day and then have to wait a month to be back on that agenda so we've pushed that filing deadline back nine days and that allows the staff enough time to review it if there is a continued discussion and there's changes to their plan get it on the technical committee agenda and have it acted on in a 10-day window rather than a 30-day window so that was something we heard from the engineers that it was becoming they were concerned about that so we were happy to adjust the schedule to accommodate a better timing for them so so in effect we're saving the applicant 20 days yes okay any questions concerning this this way so we're gonna do you want to approve this or do you want to just let us have it with to approve it the end of October This is for your information. Take with you. Thank you. Thank you. We have a work session. Mr. Duncan, you want to refer to that? Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are asking or recommending that you all cancel the work session scheduled for next Thursday, October 18th at 1.30 in the Phoenix Building. we're recommending you cancel that because we are holding a public input meeting that evening for the comprehensive plan. So we would invite you all to come to that instead. We don't have any other business to bring to you at work session this month, so we felt like if we could cancel that, perhaps we'd get you all Thursday night then. And while we're talking about that, just so you'll note, the public input meeting next Thursday, October 18th, will be at 6 o'clock at the Senior Center, the new Senior Center out at Lexington Mall. Lexington Mall? I thought the new senior citizen... Well, I'll have to ask you later about that. I thought the senior citizen was out there off Richmond Road. Okay. We're talking about the same thing. Yes, sir. The new one, I said Lexington Mall, Southland Church, however we remember that dear place. Okay. Okay. All right. So our work session is going to be public hearing at 6 p.m. on the 18th. Public input meeting. Public input meeting. We'll have a public hearing later here in council chambers. Okay. All right. Mr. Chair, you all do need to vote to cancel that meeting, please. Okay. Mike. Mr. Chair, Jim, is this the first public input meeting? This will likely be the only public input meeting of this type. We are having a series of public outreach sessions this week, and I'll be glad to speak about those during staff comments as well. Okay. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir? I'll move for postponement or cancellation of the work session on October 18, 2018. Okay. Motion is made and seconded. If there's no discussion, vote when it comes up on the screen. Okay. Now, Mr. Duncan, you want to talk to us a little bit about tomorrow? Yes, Mr. Chair, we've also got actually got two things we want to talk about. Tomorrow is the scheduled training for the Planning Commission and for the staff, Board of Adjustment as well. That starts at 8 o'clock on the third floor of the Phoenix Building. David Pike will be here and will be leading that training. We also have a tour of the old courthouse as part of that, an interior tour. and then we'll have some other presentations as well. So it will be an all-day training, 8 until 4.30, and with a tour of the courthouse about midday. So we hope you all will be there. We will be starting at 8 o'clock, third floor, Phoenix Building. Okay. Thank you. I guess we have an announcement to make. And, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, may I also say a few words. Mr. Owens asked about additional public input for the comprehensive plan. And we've had some public outreach scheduled for this week. Tuesday night we were at the West Six Runners Club with our booth and speaking to folks there. Last night we were at the Lyric Theater as part of Tree Week. Tonight we'll be set up at Thursday Night Live. Friday night we will be at Beaumont at the Moondance Amphitheater for Freaky Friday Flicks. And then on Saturday afternoon, we will be at McConnell Springs for the Little Goblins Galore event. And that will be from 1 until 5 Saturday afternoon. All the other events this evening or this week are either at 5.30 or 6. And so what we are is we're actually seeing some folks at these events that wouldn't ordinarily come to our public input meetings. So we're getting the word out there. But certainly invite you all to come to any of these as well. So you're doing a lot of traveling this week. We've got a little road show this week. Yes, sir. Some people call it dog and pony. You call it a road show. That's fine. All right. Is that what you have, Mr. Duncan? Is that all you have for us? Yes, sir, unless you all have any questions, certainly. Well, some of you have asked about filling the vacancy that we have on the planning commission. Our mute chairman has been in contact with the mayor, and according to his notes, the mayor has told him that he would recommend somebody from that list within two weeks. We still need to agree on the process at a separate time, and we could start a discussion on that today. We certainly have time to do that if we wanted to do that. What would the commission desire? There's two things to bring to you that has been some discussion. One of them would be would the commission desire a three-person subcommittee to review the applications and present two or three of them to us to consider? Would the planning committee act as the committee of the whole to review all the applications, cutting it down to three, and then going from there? Knowing that the mayor said he's going to do it in two weeks, we need to have discussion if we want to start this process and if so these are two options that our chairman has kind of gleaned from what the discussion has been for those so what we'll do with us have an informal discussion here about I guess number one do we want to wait two weeks or do we want to start the process and number two if that is the wish of the Commission then we need to talk about which process do we start. So we'll just open it up for discussion and see where it goes. Carol. Thank you. Are you saying two weeks beginning at what date today? I don't have the answer to that and I don't read sign language. Let's see what he writes. That being the case, if it were today or yesterday, I would suggest a two weeks since there is a process, because if the commission takes off, we're really in uncharted territory, whether we're going to review the alleged applications. So I would, at this point, from the info that you've given, I would say let's wait two more weeks. We've waited three months already. Okay. Anybody else? Will? I'm not of that opinion. I think the point that you've made that we have waited for three months is part of my decision. I don't see a problem with us moving forward establishing a process. I'm not in favor of a three-person committee. I think it should be a committee of the whole. I believe that's what it's stated in the, it says the planning commission. It doesn't say a committee. so I would be in favor of each of us receiving all applications that have been made for the position and then select each each member select three submit those and then those would be compiled in the top three would then be interviewed. Okay. Anybody else? Let's now's the time to, I mean, we're really starting to process what we're doing, whether we need it or not. It's another, another issue, but we don't want to wait two weeks and then have to have a meeting. I understand your point. Anybody else? Mike? Thank you. I'm yeah, I'm gonna kind of straddle the fence a little bit. one, I'm okay with letting the mayor bring forth a name for us to approve. But by the same token, I think we should have a discussion today, which we're having to start and start working on a process in case that name doesn't come forward. I'm hopeful that it will. But, you know, at this point, yeah, we've waited three months. I don't think we should wait longer. Simply put, I think we should at least start the discussion and start working towards it. I don't think we'll have anything in place within those two weeks, but at least we'll be two weeks on down the road with a process if that's what happens. Let me ask our attorney or staff a procedural question. Would we have access to the mayor's applications before he makes his decision? Mr. Chair, we could certainly ask for those applications. There may even be additional ones that have come in since this process with the council started. So I don't know. But we could ask for those. I don't know what the response would be, but we would certainly be willing to ask. And I guess to our attorney, I would say, does the KRS-100, are we following what they state that we should do? KRS 100 doesn't say anything except that if the mayor or the appointing authority doesn't appoint within 60 days after the term expires, that the planning commission shall make the appointment. So you all would have to create your own process. So to follow up with Will's question, what we're doing here is setting up parameters of how we would do it if he doesn't. It's kind of what we're doing today. I think that's correct. And while I'm not advocating one way or the other on this, you know, you are welcome to do that at any point in time because the 60 days expired some time ago. Well, not some time ago, but it expired at the end of August. Will? I want to just clarify. I certainly don't have any issues if the mayor would like to make a recommendation, but it is in our hands. we need to start the process and there's you know we we don't know who that person's going to be what that person's going to be um and it may or may not be acceptable to us and if it isn't then we're just that much further behind okay yeah our our mute chairman agrees with with that statement I never thought about going to a sign language class, but I'm considering that very strongly now, but he'd have to go with me. It wouldn't do us any good. What about other people that haven't spoken? I mean, let's see if we can get some kind of consensus here, how we want to do this. Yes, sir. Well, I like the recommendation where if we had the ability to get the applications that have been submitted, we can then review the application and start the process on our own. I don't know what that would look like, but at least get those into our hands. We can then figure out how we vote for the individual to join us. I would concur with that. I think the ball is in our hands right now. I don't want to keep kicking the can down the road. Okay, that's fine. Yeah. So what I'm hearing, Healy, you'd be willing to jump in. Karen, go right ahead. Well, I'm in agreement. Irregardless of whether we're waiting on the mayor or we're moving this process along, I think what we're seeing is we need to establish a process. And so I'm in agreement. Healy, you feel the same way? Okay. so we pretty much reached a consensus that we are going to go with this and we're going to go with with us acting as a committee of a whole rather than doing this the subcommittee situation so just a minute i'm getting a text coming in here carol while he's doing that thank you uh i go along with that process but what we need to establish remember that those applications have very sensitive personal material on them yeah and if they can come to us without social numbers without there's background checks on there yeah and if if that process can be protected yeah i was going i definitely will go along with us moving forward but i just i would if if that you know i've got a terrible criminal record and i wouldn't want i'm going to want everybody to know about that so you hear what i'm saying yes you've hit it well for a lot of years uh yeah carol i was thinking along those same lines and i guess i would ask legal and staff when you make the request for those applications we don't need all the background information we may need some of it i think that's something that you and legal we'll have to look at. The thing I'm most concerned about is that we've already had one unfortunate situation with the person who was nominated. What I don't want to do is for us to get in a situation where we get these in our hands and we don't protect it. We don't protect the information. Because the people that fill out those applications fill it out within the framework of the administration reviewing it and making their recommendation. never had any idea that it was going to distribute to 10 different people so with this process we have to we have to accept the fact that we can we're going to have some information probably shouldn't be shared i just have a question since i just took a electronic fishing test on at the bank this morning if we're going to get those items those applications would it be best if If you hand deliver it to us in the location, like maybe in the Phoenix building or in here, because everybody's email is not protected. Like I'm at the bank, your email is at the house. I can break into yours faster than you can break into mine. I have no doubt with your criminal record, you'd be very good. Good to know. I know. Well, you'd be on a bad fishing exposition because there's nothing there. I just need you to click. That's quite hard. That's quite hard. It's a point well taken. No. It is. It's a point we're thinking. Mike? Not to belabor the point, one thought, you know, whatever number of applications there were, are we, you know, if these come to us, do they come to us with the knowledge that the applicant is still willing? because these applications maybe were taken three, four, five months ago. That is just a thought. I'd hate to go through a process and then somebody asks and they say, well, no, we're moving in a month. It's just a thought. It's a good thought. I've been involved in two of these, one with the Presidential Search Committee and once with a pastoral committee. And I can tell you that if you don't protect the information, and really, Mike, you're making a great suggestion, before we get those things, somebody ought to contact them and see if they're still interested. There's no sense in us reading VEDAs or applications that they're not interested in serving. Any other questions, comments? okay here the process the committee the whole would work yeah no I understand where you're getting at what he's saying is even we decide to do the committee of the whole how's it going to work in other words what's going to be the what's going to be the stage one two and three because it makes a good point you know we can read all these uh what do we do with email or what we do with actual delivery hand delivery or we all meet in the meeting and pass them out whatever i still think we need to vet them to see if they're still interested before we get the data before we get the applications and i don't know who does that I don't know how you do it. Mr. Duncan, you shed some light on that? Well, I'll be happy to walk with you on this. I don't know that I could offer the solution as well. Certainly when we ask the mayor, the mayor's office, for these applications, anybody that has indicated that they are no longer interested, I think the mayor's office would know that, and so they could let us know that. But there could very well be some who are no longer interested. They just haven't said anything. What we could do is perhaps still go ahead and give all of the applications that we don't have any information on to you, and then let you make a short list, and then if you'd like, we can determine whether they're still interested at that point. We can make some calls or some contacts and see if they're still interested, and then come back and make the final determination. So there would be sort of a two-step process. Then you all come to a consensus on the top three or five or whatever it is that list gets narrowed to. And then we'd be glad to check on their interest and then get that information back to you as well. That's certainly one way to look at it. Anybody want to improve on that recommendation? Anybody disagree with that recommendation? No, I think that's probably the wrong way to go about it, Jim. I think it should ask each of the applicants if they're still interested. if they're not clear them off the decks because otherwise you could get somebody who wouldn't make the cut of top three or top five and find out later that they might have because one of the people who did make it ends up dropping out because they weren't interested and that but doesn't have to be your staff i think the mayor should he choose to do so well again and that would be a request on our part with whether the mayor of course would not have to do. They may not even want to give us the list. I don't know. And whether they would want to vet that further, I don't know either. I have seen the list, and I do believe that there would be some potential, or there's some applicants on that that you all would not be interested in. And so therefore, by us contacting them and saying, are you still interested in being on the Planning Commission, that perhaps elevates their level of confidence that they may still be a contender when I really don't believe they would be, because I know some of the applicants on there, and I just don't believe you all would be interested in having them. So that was my concern about notifying all of them up front, is that they think that they are still potentially a finalist when I truly don't believe they would be. And I think when you see the names, you'll agree that a few of them would not be appropriate for the Planning Commission. Let me ask a legal question here. All of our deliberations would be an executive session. Yes, once you have a list or even one person that you're going to deliberate over whether or not that's who you want to appoint your all's internal deliberations and discussions would be in a closed session but anything like this discussion or any kind of official appointing vote would have to be an open session i think if you did if you decided you wanted to go the way of interviews that you'd probably have to ask those questions in open if you're doing it as a committee of the whole. Anybody else? I think an interview process would be appropriate for whoever we choose, or if we choose three. If there's 15 applicants, we'd choose three. It'd probably be worthwhile to talk to the top three, just like I had to do recently. It wasn't that big of a deal. We did it in front of the council and answered some questions and kind of judged the interest of the applicant. Well, you know, we've all done that a time or two in our lives. So it's not the interview process. It's how we get to the interview process. We pretty much agree that we'll get down to whatever the number is and we'll have an interview process. The question that comes is how do we get the applications? What do we do with them? and how do we decide which three or whatever the number is that we're going to do and while we had some time today uh the chair and i thought it would just be a good opportunity to talk about this some uh we're not going to know until we see what the response from the first floor is asking for the applications really truly i mean we can supposition all we want to but we're not going to really know well let me let me just say this in terms of i know you all are trying to get to the place where you get the last member on this commission. So I don't know, you know, if the mayor, I only know what the mayor says in terms of what he's going to do in two weeks. But assuming that, I mean, it seems to me you could go ahead and determine either way whether you don't get that from him or whether we ask for the list. I mean, we can go ahead and do that, I think. But if he says, and I don't know that he will or he won't, but, you know, if their office says, no, we're not going to give it to you. Even regardless of all that, once you get a pool of possible candidates, how do you all want to, what process do you want to do as a whole committee to get it down to the three or the five or the whatever you want to interview? I think he agrees, but I'm not, you know, I think that's what that means. Always agreeing or telling you're number one, hang on a minute. Because you could, I mean, if you don't get the list from the mayor's office, I guess there's some way you could compile a list of people that you would want to consider on your own. What he's talking about on the interviews is that we'd have a set of questions prepared that we'd ask all of them. In other words, as we get there, and I have a process that he'd like to suggest. So the question becomes once we get to that, I think what he's saying is he'll have a set of questions that we'll see beforehand, and we'll ask all the same questions to all two or three or whatever it is so that we're fair across the board. but that that can be determined once we get the process going that's the last step in the process is a set of questions and our chairs had a lot of experience doing that kind of stuff so i'm sure we'll get the set of questions what i think what we're down to we know that we're wanted to do as a commission committee of a whole we've already established that we also know that we're going to ask for the applications and redact pertinent information that we don't really have to have because of the putting it all out there and then the third thing is if we're going to act as a committee of a whole we'll have to come together and and read them all and come down to a certain number here's our first second third or here's the three one you know whatever whatever we decide on that. I guess what we need to know first is if we can get the applications. I think what this will do is just spur them to come on with the nominees, what I think eventually happens, but I don't know that. Mr. Chair, that was going to be my question. If you all would direct the staff to go ahead and ask for that list now, then we can do that. But I would like direction from you all as to the timing of the request for that. And if your request is to do it now that's what we'll do if your request is that we wait we'll do that too okay let's address that do we want to go ahead and ask for the applications uh okay everybody's nodding their head i don't see anybody not in the affirmative uh so i guess the answer to that is yes do we need a motion to ask for that i i don't think so we can if there's a consensus on the commission to do so So we can request that, and I'll certainly keep you all apprised as to what the status of that is. Let's assume that we do get that list, then the staff can go through those applications and the resumes and redact any sensitive information before we make ten individual packets for you all for distribution. And then we'll get those to you either, if we feel like we're going to get with you at a future meeting, we'll save it for that. If not, we'll put them in the mail to you. Is that agreeable to everybody? Okay. I'm talking too much, but thank you. Could we request the staff to go ahead and do a process, outline a legal process that we would follow? Well, I hope. Reflective of what we've said today. Yeah. If you all will take the ideas that we've consented on here today and develop an outline process, how this could work. and then we'll go forward and make that part of the request from the commission to you all. When you get affirmative on the applications, then start the process of getting the applications to us, where we can handle them. I certainly don't want Larry emailing to me. I don't even want him to go through Larry's email. I may not know all I need to know about the Internet, but I know it's dangerous. And you make a good point. So are we okay there? Everybody knows what we're going to do here. All right. Will? To the point of having set questions, well, what I would say is when the council does their confirmation hearings, that's not the format so you know where I'm wondering if you come up with a set you know some set questions but not have you know some of those answers may warrant further questions so I don't know that I would be in favor of necessarily limiting it to you know five questions or whatever i think we can probably you know come to some consensus as to what you know what a baseline yeah would be but to limit it well i don't think i use the word limited what what the point was is that we were going to ask all three of them the same set of questions it doesn't mean you can't follow up doesn't mean you can't ask it's the fact that you want to give the the third person a chance to answer the same questions that the first person was asked if you're trying to narrow it down to one right I understand that I just want to make it clear that I don't think it should be limited to that necessarily I use the word limited I really I didn't hear that I just heard that we would be fair and getting the same questions across but your points well taken though I'm not oh which one of these papers am I reading now I'm glad I went to school and learned how to read. Carolyn makes a good point in her comment to me just now. I think we need to bring them in one by one, not have them all here at the sitting here because like Carolyn said, by the time you get to third person, he knows all the answers. I mean I'd like to be that third person I guess. Depends on how hard they were on the first two Karen. Yeah that's true. I might leave. Hang on just a minute I got another one coming in here. Carrier pigeon. It's a dissertation. He should try texting. He should be texting. What our chairman, the point he's making here, I think is a good point. He says it's fine to ask the questions. The follow-up questions are good, but we must be aware of inappropriate questions. and I don't know how deep we need to get into this right now Bill I think that's the kind of thing as chairman that you'll certainly have an opportunity to work on I hope we don't get to the point to where it's combative I don't think one person will show up that we can all agree on or most of us can agree on and it's I don't think we're going to get into I hope we wouldn't get into inappropriate questions but he makes a point that that can happen on follow-up questions, and it kind of happened. I mean, I've seen it happen when the council interviews some people. You know, one person has a reason to be for or against it, and they use that to influence the rest of them. Where we're doing it here, we're just trying to find the best member we can find to serve with us, and I really don't think the inappropriate questions would come because we're not looking for votes or checks either one, And I would hope that that would be the difference. Anything else? All right, is that Tracy? Well, I have one question, and I'm not trying to belabor this, but if we're going to try to draft up some kind of procedure or process for you, I want to be sure we're understanding correctly what you want us to do. In terms of let's just assume some way, either through the mayor's office or otherwise, Otherwise you get a pool of applicants and we provide you all some kind of packet of information about them. At that point after you all have reviewed them, that's where I'm losing the process. Are you, I could see it being two different ways. Are you looking at each of you then saying, okay, these are my top three and the staff puts those together and says, okay, out of all of these, these are the top three? Or are you looking at reconvening as a whole group and trying to come up with the three? Will, if you want to address that, I think we agree on that. I think we need to keep it somewhat simple. I mean, I think, you know, you make your choice, you submit your choice, and it's simply just, you know, of those submitted, who has the most or the top three, I should say. I mean, it doesn't have to be. that's what I'm suggesting is three I don't know that there's being need to do any more than that but you know I don't see that we need to complicate it and meet about it multiple times where we ought to be spending our time is looking at their applications and forming our own opinions and we can come in here and we're just going to hash it out and we'll sit around and I don't know that we will get to a consensus until we have the three. Oh, whatever. Pardon me. You need to sit down here next to the chairman. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Go ahead, Heathley. The gentleman who was recommended before, who was not approved, Is it possible that he could circle back around? That's a good question. I don't know the answer. Mr. Chair, Mr. Bell, his name is on the list, so we will be providing. If we get that list officially from the mayor's office, then we would provide that name to you as well. Thank you. Okay. the teletype here says the process will need to be worked out the details of the process will need to work down and i i really think this is one of these things where the chairman needs to work with the staff to come through with the process because you know now what what our preferences are and what our processes are we don't need to figure out step one two and three I would suggest that our chairman work with the staff to come up with our wishes. And then that's all. Will, you got another question? You brought up a good point. You know, something else we may want to consider is once we do come up with a recommendation, that maybe we send it to the City Council to let them confirm. Mr. Chair, I don't believe the statute makes a provision for that. at this point the council has no say in this selection they've already had their shot that it was just a courtesy thing so uh all right anything else so we all speak now forever hold your peace we've started this process and we've given the staff and legal what we'd like to do so we're going to ask them to work with our chairman and come up with with the way to do it anything else needs anything anything else needs to come before us Mr. Duncan anything you want to share with us I believe we're caught up thank you Mr. Chair thank you all for no further discussion no further input while we will stand adjourned