# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - March 14, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 14, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4718 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4718?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-03-14 - **Last revised**: March 14, 2019 - **Length**: 10,777 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 March 14, 2019, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with William Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed three agenda items during the session, all of which received approval: Tuscany Unit 11 Phase 2, Willow Oak Shopping Center (Millpond Center), and the Hoover and Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property. Throughout the meeting, commissioners conducted eight motions and votes on various matters related to these development proposals. The commission also heard from two members of the public who provided comments during the public input portion of the proceedings. ## Attendance The meeting on March 14, 2019 had seven members present and four members absent. **Present:** • William Wilson • Headley Bell • Bruce Nicol • Graham Pohl • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee **Absent:** • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Karen Mundy • Larry Forester No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eight formal votes, all of which passed unanimously with all seven members present voting in favor. **Meeting Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from the February 14, 2019 meeting, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. **Postponements** [timestamp: 02:00, 04:00] Two development projects were postponed by unanimous votes. Mike Owens motioned to postpone PLN-MJDP-18-00090 (Distillery District - West, Unit 1 Adaptive Reuse Project), seconded by Headley Bell. Frank Penn then motioned to postpone PLN-FRP-19-00001 (Red Mile Square, Inc., Tract D, Lot 3), seconded by Graham Pohl. Both postponements passed 7-0. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 06:00] Mike Owens motioned to approve the Consent Agenda items excluding PLN-MJDP-19-00003, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. **Development Approvals** Five development projects received unanimous approval: - **PLN-MJSUB-19-00004 (Tuscany, Unit 13)** [timestamp: 08:00]: Frank Penn motioned, Graham Pohl seconded. Approved 7-0 with 12 revised staff conditions, including condition 11 noting items to resolve. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00003 (Hoover and Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property)** [timestamp: 10:00]: Mike Owens motioned, Bruce Nicol seconded. Approved 7-0 with 14 noted conditions. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00008 (Richardson Property)** [timestamp: 12:00]: Bruce Nicol motioned, Graham Pohl seconded. Approved 7-0 with 5 staff-recommended conditions. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00011 (Enterprise Business Center)** [timestamp: 14:00]: Graham Pohl motioned, Bruce Nicol seconded. Approved 7-0 with 11 staff-recommended conditions. All votes included the same seven members: William Wilson, Headley Bell, Bruce Nicol, Graham Pohl, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Plumlee. ## Public Comment Two community members addressed the board during the public comment period, both focusing on notification and community awareness issues related to a development project. **Vickie Stevens** [timestamp: 16:00] raised concerns about the notification process for property owners regarding the development. Stevens expressed worry that some property owners were not receiving proper notifications about the project due to outdated ownership information in the system. She emphasized the importance of ensuring all affected property owners are adequately informed about developments that may impact their properties. **Don Hollis** [timestamp: 18:00] spoke about community awareness efforts within the neighborhood. Hollis confirmed that he had taken the initiative to personally inform new neighbors about the development project. He reported that his outreach efforts had been well-received, stating that there were no complaints from the neighbors he had contacted about the proposed development. The public comments highlighted two different aspects of community engagement: Stevens focused on systemic notification challenges that could prevent proper communication with property owners, while Hollis demonstrated proactive community outreach and reported positive reception from residents. Both speakers' comments centered on ensuring adequate communication and awareness about the development project within the affected community. ## Contested Items The primary contested issue during the March 14, 2019 meeting centered on the adequacy of property owner notifications regarding a development proposal. **Notification of Property Owners** Community members raised significant concerns about the notification process used to inform property owners about the proposed development. The central issue was that outdated ownership information had resulted in some property owners failing to receive required notifications about the project. The disagreement focused on whether the notification procedures had been properly followed and whether all affected property owners had been given adequate opportunity to participate in the public process. Community opposition stemmed from the belief that incomplete notifications violated proper public engagement protocols and potentially excluded voices from the decision-making process. The concerns highlighted systemic issues with maintaining current property ownership records for notification purposes, raising questions about the reliability of the database used to identify and contact affected parties. This type of procedural challenge is significant because proper notification is typically a legal requirement for development approvals and public hearings. The outcome of this contested item was not specified in the available meeting materials, though such notification concerns often result in delays to allow for proper re-notification of affected property owners or requirements for additional public outreach efforts. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided materials for this contested item.* ## Tuscany, Unit 11, Phase 2 [timestamp: 20:00] The committee reviewed preliminary subdivision plan PLN-MJSUB-19-00003 for Tuscany, Unit 11, Phase 2. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the committee. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this development proposal and provided their recommendation to move forward with approval. However, their endorsement came with several specific conditions that must be addressed before final approval. The required conditions focused on three main areas of concern: • **Drainage requirements** - The developer must meet all applicable drainage standards and provide adequate stormwater management for the proposed subdivision • **Street cross-sections** - All proposed streets must conform to approved cross-sectional specifications and design standards • **Environmental approvals** - Additional environmental clearances and permits must be obtained as required by applicable regulations Following the presentation and discussion of the subdivision committee's findings, the committee voted to approve the preliminary subdivision plan for Tuscany, Unit 11, Phase 2. The approval was granted with the understanding that all conditions specified by the Subdivision Committee must be satisfied before the project can proceed to the next phase of development. This approval represents a step forward in the development process for this phase of the Tuscany subdivision, though the developer will need to address the outstanding technical requirements related to infrastructure and environmental compliance before receiving final authorization to begin construction activities. ## Willow Oak Shopping Center (Millpond Center) [timestamp: 22:00] The Planning Commission reviewed case PLN-MJDP-18-00075 for an amended development plan at Willow Oak Shopping Center, also known as Millpond Center. The proposal involved adding a car wash facility to the existing shopping center. Traci Wade presented the staff recommendation, which was to approve the amended development plan. However, the approval came with several conditions that the developer would need to meet: • **Drainage requirements** - The applicant must address stormwater management concerns related to the new car wash facility • **Landscaping conditions** - Specific landscaping improvements or modifications were required as part of the development • **Fire service features** - The plan needed to incorporate adequate fire safety and emergency access provisions The staff analysis determined that the proposed car wash addition was compatible with the existing shopping center and met the necessary development standards, provided the specified conditions were satisfied. Following the staff presentation and any discussion, the Planning Commission voted to approve the amended development plan for PLN-MJDP-18-00075. The approval allows the Willow Oak Shopping Center to move forward with the car wash development, contingent upon meeting all the drainage, landscaping, and fire service requirements outlined by staff. This approval represents a modification to the previously approved development plan for the shopping center, adding the car wash as a new commercial use within the existing retail complex. ## Hoover and Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property [timestamp: 24:00] The meeting addressed development plan PLN-MJDP-19-00003 for the Hoover and Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property. Bruce Simpson served as the key speaker presenting information on this agenda item. The proposed development plan includes construction of a hotel and restaurants on the property. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the proposal and recommended approval, though their recommendation came with several specific conditions that must be met. The required conditions focus on three main areas: • **Drainage requirements** - Specific measures must be implemented to address water management and runoff concerns • **Landscaping standards** - The development must meet established landscaping requirements • **Access easements** - Proper easement arrangements must be secured to ensure adequate property access Following the presentation and discussion, the development plan received approval from the meeting body. The approval maintains the conditions previously established by the Subdivision Committee, meaning the developer must satisfy all drainage, landscaping, and access easement requirements before proceeding with construction. The project represents a commercial development that will bring hospitality and dining facilities to the area through the hotel and restaurant components. With the conditional approval now secured, the Hoover and Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association can move forward with their development plans once they fulfill the specified requirements related to site infrastructure and access. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the minutes of the February 14, 2019 meeting - **PLN-MJDP-18-00090** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Distillery District - West, Unit 1 (Adaptive Reuse Project) - **PLN-FRP-19-00001** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Red Mile Square, Inc., Tract D, Lot 3 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items excluding PLN-MJDP-19-00003 - **PLN-MJSUB-19-00004** — passed (7-0): Approval of Tuscany, Unit 13 - **PLN-MJDP-19-00003** — passed (7-0): Approval of Hoover and Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property - **PLN-MJDP-19-00008** — passed (7-0): Approval of Richardson Property - **PLN-MJDP-19-00011** — passed (7-0): Approval of Enterprise Business Center --- ## Full transcript We conduct a physical count and then we also conduct surveys with those individuals so we can get some demographics and service use patterns. And what it really helps us to do is identify what our progress towards ending homelessness is. It allows us to identify our community needs. It also allows us to attract funding and just plan for what our homeless system should look like in order to best serve those in need. Okay. How long have we been doing this in the community? We've been doing this in the community for quite some time. I know we've been doing it probably at least, probably about 20 years. Well, the trends, I mean, what are we seeing that's happening in Lexington? And I guess this count helps you look at the trends. Are we improving? Are we getting worse? But can you elaborate on that? Yeah, absolutely. So, recently we had some headlines probably with our 2018 Lex count. Those numbers were pretty impressive for us. It was the lowest numbers that Lexington has seen in over a decade since about 2005. If we look at the time period since the Office of Homelessness Intervention and Prevention and Intervention has been created in 2014, we've actually seen a 56% decrease in homelessness on the night of the count. So what attributes to that decrease? So that decrease can be a number of things. One thing, I like to think that having our office here to help guide our system has had an impact in showing that we've actually made progress in ending homelessness. Sometimes it also has to do with changing how certain beds are classified within our system. So some of those numbers may be that we are no longer counting certain programs that don't specifically serve the homeless population. So it may not always be a case of us lowering our numbers, but giving more accurate numbers that truly reflect those who are homeless. Do all cities do this? I mean, is this something unique to Lexington, or is this across the country? It is something that happens across the country. It is a national event. It typically takes place in January, usually on the last Wednesday of the month. That thought process is that during the winter months, most of our people are going to be seeking shelters. So we're going to find the lowest numbers of persons that are actually on the streets. And it is something that happens in all communities. Here in Kentucky, we have three continual of care. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End The End Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the March 14, 2019 Urban County Planning Commission subdivision meeting. If you're looking at the clock on the wall, it says that we're through. It says 406, but I can guarantee you that it's just 131 or 132. Welcome to those of you in the audience. Welcome to the staff. And most of all, welcome to our commissions. With that, approval of the minutes for February the 14th. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move approval of February 14, 2019 minutes. Okay. It's been moved by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Graham Pohl, that we approve the February the 14th, 2019 minutes. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote? It comes up on your screens. Thank you. That motion carries. Postponements and our withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Mark McIntosh with Vision Engineering. On page five of today's agenda, it's item G. It's Plan 18-90 Distillery District on Manchester Street. We'd like to request a two-week postponement until the March 28th meeting. The reason is Division Engineering has requested a little bit more time to look at the additional parking on the site. Anyone in the audience would like to comment on this recommendation for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement plan MJDP 18-90 Distillery District until March 28th, 2019. Okay. Mr. Owens is moved. a second that we postpone PLN in MJDP 18-90 distillery district for two weeks or until March the 28th. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. That motion carries. Thank you. Any other postponements withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page one of your agenda under final subdivision plans, this is item A, this is a final record plat 19-1 for Red Mile Square Incorporated. We have received a communication from the applicant's engineer requesting a one-month postponement they're still working on the open space issue on that property what's the date on that April April 11 April 11 April 11 okay is anyone in the audience like to speak to this recommendation for postponement Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for one month postponement to the April 11th meeting for PLN FRP 19-1 to the 4-11-19 meeting. Okay, it's a motion that's been made by Mr. Penn and second by Mr. Pol that we postpone for one month or until April 11th. PLN FRP 19-1 Red Mill Square Incorporated. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. That motion carries. Any other withdrawals or postponements? I will accept from the chair a postponement for the University of Tennessee, for the University of Louisiana, LSU, Alabama, and all the other teams in the SEC, and let Kentucky win this thing as it ought to be approved. Dies for lack of a second. I hear it, and my colleague says it dies for lack of a second. Ms. Wade, do we have a consent agenda? Yes, Chairman Wilson, we do have a consent agenda today, and I will note one of those items was just removed by postponement. DP 2015-111 for Urban 221. No, I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the wrong plan. I'm sorry. I was thinking of Manchester. I'll read through the consent agenda for you. We have two subdivision plans and seven development plans. And at this point, we will just read through the agenda and see if there's anyone present who would like to have any of these items heard by the full commission today. The first item appears on page two, and it is a preliminary subdivision plan. item a pln mj sub 19 3 for tuscany unit 11 phase 2. this is for property located on a portion of 1970 winchester road the next item is on page 2 item c it is pln mj subs 19-5 for tuscany unit 14 also located on a portion of 1970 Winchester Road as well as 2599 Old Rosebud Road the next items are development plans the first one is on page 3 item a and this is recommended for conditional approval by the staff and it's PLN MJ DP 18-75 the Willow Oak Shopping Center also known as Mill Pond Center this is an amended final development plan located on property at 20 I'm sorry 3650 Boston Road the next item appears on page 3 it is item B this is also a final development plan and in fact this one is a combination final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan PLN MJDP 18-76 for the blackford property phase three amended this is located at 3221 bay springs park and 3385 blackford parkway that particular item also has a requirement for a sign posting and the applicant has provided the appropriate affidavit and photos of the sign that's been posted in a timely manner for the site that item also has a report from the staff associated with it related to the expansion area master plan compliance and that's at your seat as well the next item appears on page three item c pln mjdp 19-3 for hoover and ford philpot evangelist evangelistic association property and that's for property located at 3801 3901 and 3955 harrodsburg road the next item is on page four and it's item e on the agenda pln mjdp 19-10 for the sebastian property unit 2 and that's also an amended final development plan for property located at 2944 trail wood lane and page 5 item h PLN MJDP 18-6, Hamburg Place, for B6P and B5P Area Highway Commercial, Lot 9, and that's an amended development plan located on property at 2344 Elkhorn Road. And then lastly, a development plan recommended for re-approval by the subdivision committee appears on page 6. It's item I, and that's DP 2015-111 for Urban 221, a portion of, located at 221 Corral Street in downtown. At this time, the staff would ask if there's anyone present or a member of the commission that would like to have one of these items removed from the consent agenda for further discussion or consideration by the Planning Commission. Go to the microphone, please, ma'am. Yes, sir. Which one do you, yeah, go ahead. All you need to tell us now is which one you'd like to pull. Which case, yes. Oh, okay. I have a concern about 1903. So page three, item six, the Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association. Okay, we'll pull that one, and then we'll have a full discussion on that one. Okay. So at this point, the Planning Commission may consider the rest of these items in one motion for conditional approval. Okay. Do the Commission members have any others that they'd like to hear more about? The one that we're pulling is on page 3 at the bottom of page 3, 1903, Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association property. That one will be going forward for a full hearing as such. The rest of them will remain on the consent agenda. Okay, with that, we'll entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda as present with the exception of item C. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the consent agenda as read with the exception of Plan MJDP 19-3 Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association property. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve the consent agenda with the exception of PLN, MJDP, 19-3, Hoover, and Ford Field Park Evangelistic Association properties. Any other discussion on the motion? Not. Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay. And motion carries. Thank you. While the staff is getting set up for our first one, then, with the indulgence of my colleagues, If you'll turn to page 6, at the bottom it says performance bonds or letters of credit. Which one? We'll entertain a motion to accept that or whatever. Which one are you doing first? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the release and call of bonds from the memorandum dated March 14, 2019. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Mr. Healy-Bell, that we approve the release of call of bonds for 2000, what is it, the 14th, March 14th, 2019. Any other discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. We can move. Ms. Galt, you can. Good afternoon. We have a set of revised conditions. You're going to look at MJSUB 19-4 for Tuscany Unit 13. We didn't get different color sheets, so Everything's on a brown sheet today. So you'll look for Tuscany Unit 13. We're on the page 2? Right, but I have revised conditions on a brown sheet. Okay. Because we had some discussion at the subdivision committee, so we wound up getting some revised conditions for you all. Okay, Ms. Gall, please proceed. Thank you. Okay. Today we are looking at a portion of Tuscany. This portion is kind of like a small triangle right here off of Meeting Street. This Meeting Street, and then we have the high school located. Winchester Road and the new high school are located right up here. We have Haymaker Parkway coming through here to connect into the rest of the subdivision. We had some discussion on this at the subdivision committee meeting, where you can see we still had two discussion questions left, and we were able to come up and resolve those questions to resolve the alignment of Haymaker to Frederick Douglass High School, access to the approval of traffic engineering. It is my understanding that the engineer and traffic engineering have been working on the better way to have these access points onto Meeting Street. So we ask for that to be to their approval. And then the other one is the discussion of the street trees. We have a major gas line that runs along Meeting Street, parallel to Meeting Street. So if you go by what the street cross section is, the street tree should be behind the right of way, but we've asked for those to be within the right of way. And so we just wanted them to update the cross section to show that. Any questions for Ms. Galt? Who's the applicant? Good afternoon, Rory KofEA partners. We're agreeable to the revised 12 conditions. Great. I like your presentation. Is it anyone, do anyone have any questions? Okay, does anyone in the audience like to speak about this particular proposal? Anyone on the commission? Okay, thank you. We'll entertain a motion then. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMJSU B19-4 with revised conditions, changing number 11 to resolve. Okay, do I have a second? Okay, we have a motion made by Mr. Frank Penn, second by Mr. Graham Pohl, that we approve PLN MJSUB19-4 Tuscany Unit 13 with the 12 revised conditions by staff with number 11 noting to resolve. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on the screens? Okay. That passes. Thank you. I'm not sure if it's ready for me yet. Here we go. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page three. It is item C. It is a major development plan, 19-3, Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association property. Of course, this is property out located at Manowar Boulevard and Harrodsburg Road. You can see the frontages in this location. This is a mixture of a final development plan and a preliminary development plan. The final development plan aspects are this lot with a five-story, 100-room hotel. two outlots in these locations for restaurants. This is a little over 4,000 square feet, and this is just a little over 2,000 square feet. And then the existing commercial development that's had various businesses and restaurants in it, I think Mexican and Jets Pizza and that sort of thing, that is also a part of the final development to allow some remodeling and some work to go on in that particular building. In addition, the access easement, along with the main entrance at this location into the development, are all part of this final development plan and will be constructed in conjunction with this final development plan. Now, you may recall early discussions on this property, there was a lot of talk about access. They have a right in and right out off of Man of War, and they have a full access point here, and they are proposing a light as well. There were some concerns initially about another entrance in this location. You can see that's been removed. They have been working with the state of Kentucky on this light and the spacing, as there were some concerns, of course, with the spacing between lights. they have a turn lane that will be coming into the development as well the issues that were discussed are basically resolution issues one of which is the extent of this access easement staff would like to have it clearly delineated on the plan that it extends to the adjoining property Again, the intent is to see to it that the transportation system is set up to serve all those properties along Herodsburg Road and keep unnecessary traffic on the road except at approved intersections. We've had discussions with the applicant. I believe we discussed it in front of the subdivision committee as well, their intention to do that. There may be some site construction constraints, so the pavement may not be completed right up to that section until this lot is developed. So that's just site construction issues that they have. There was another smaller issue, sort of a self-imposed problem with their conditional zoning for their signage, which, again, they've addressed that with staff. It's a resolution issue. They just have to meet their signage requirements as were imposed on the plan. And then there was another item, which was resolve the timing of the landscaping improvements along the road frontage. You may recall we had a discussion, again, a large development like this next to these major arterials. we'd like to know what kind of landscaping what kind of face they're going to present to our arterials a lot of our arterials including man of war although not in this section have landscape ordinances so a previous development on further down the road staff worked with that developer and they're going to meet the man of war landscaping standards along that development And that is what basically has been agreed to here. So the timing issue that came up, again, normally landscaping, that sort of thing, is the last to go in with a lot of developments. It is staff's understanding, and I believe they verified this with the committee. They're going to put in the man-of-war landscaping with this phase of the development. And then this will come later with additional outlot development. And again, I want to emphasize all this, this is all preliminary. There's no construction that will happen from this plan in these preliminary areas. You will have to see and approve a final development plan on that section of the property before any kind of construction, anything will take place. With that, your committee did recommend approval of the plan. There's a lot more going on with this plan. There's a TIF associated with it. I'm sure the applicant will be happy to elaborate on that with you. and staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Penn has a question for you. Tom, when you pointed out the preliminary development part, what about the connection into the subdivision? Is that part of the preliminary plan? This is preliminary plan, yes, sir. So the role will be put in, the final development plan will be on the left side of the row as you come through. Yes, sir. But the connection won't be made until the preliminary development plan becomes final. That section is part of the preliminary plan still. and that will be resolved completely at the final development plan for that site. Not that we anticipate a lot of changes, but. That's fine. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Bruce Simpson on behalf of Fountains at Palomar. Winford Webb is here today as well as Roderick Saylor, our engineer. And just Tom covered what we filed very clearly and it had been reviewed through the Technical Review Committee and also the Subdivision Committee and met with approval. Prior to those meetings, we did have a meeting with the Board of Directors of the Palomar Neighborhood Association. And then subsequently, we had a meeting with all the neighbors within the notification area. We sent out letters, sent those to the staff, and they mailed them out for us in advance of today's hearing. So we had a very constructive meeting with the neighborhood board and the neighbors as well. Don Hollis, who's the president of the Glades Neighborhood, which is the closest neighborhood in terms of homes next to this proposed development, is here today as well on behalf of that neighborhood association. Vicki Stevens, who also lives in the Glades, is here. I think she has wanted to make a few comments with respect to our proposal as well. But as Tom indicated, we did make some changes in response to some of the concerns the staff had raised when this property went through the zoning stage. In particular, we eliminated the right in, right out off of Harrodsburg Road, and we have gotten a signal approval and access approval from the state of Kentucky for our signal on Harrodsburg Road. As Tom indicated, we're going to go ahead and put the landscaping in along Harrodsburg Road and Manowar to meet those, particularly on Manowar, the extra landscaping features. One point of emphasis that's important, certainly to the residents of the Glades, we've always, if you remember, had shown the Glades being a pedestrian bicycle access only. That's still our plan. That's what we believe is most safe, considering the substandard nature of the streets in the Glades. Those were private streets originally. They were not constructed to public road standards, very narrow, and they've since put some parking signs that limit parking in the Glade so that the situation that was there before where it was difficult for cars to pass one another, two cars were parking on opposite sides of the street, now parking is limited to one side of the street only. So it's a problem situation to navigate even with that for vehicle, just because of the narrowness of the road. As Tom indicated, we will be coming before the commission just to share our application for tax increment financing with this project. We propose some very important, what we consider to be very important amenities for the neighborhood, and you'll hear more about this on the 28th. But in general, just to tip you off of what you will here, part of our application will include upgrading the sanitary sewer system. Right now, there is no public sanitary sewer line from Manowar and Harrodsburg Road extending about a mile to the villages at South Elkhorn. There's a small shopping center down there where Ramsey's is located, in case you're familiar with that area. but this property is church for example was built on a septic tank and South Elkhorn Christian Church was built on a septic tank so if we're going to put in about a mile long sanitary sewer line to serve all of the property to be developed in the future there are several vacant parcels down that way the significance of that is by doing that we will eliminate the need to have two sanitary sewer lift stations that would have to be installed for our property to be developed as well as the property adjacent as the lodge property because of the topography of the land that goes from flows from east to west downhill toward Harrisburg Road and if we were to develop the property without the TIF we'd have to have a pump station to pump the sewage up to the Palomar system which has had some problems associated with it in the past pump stations if as you may know, have a problem of maintenance and breaking down. These would, of course, once completed and built to standards of the government, the government takes them over for operation. But they're a maintenance headache. You want to try to avoid them if at all possible. So by putting in this extraordinary line at a cost of about a million, a little over a million, about $1.3 million, we're going to eliminate pump station on our property as well as the future development of the lodge property whenever that develops and we don't know when that will be. Thus far, they've not expressed any interest in developing their property. So that's one important feature. We're also proposing extraordinary stormwater drainage features that will hold the water back substantially from the rate that it's going now across the road to Harrodsburg Road. If you may remember, David Hereford has some property at the corner of Manawarra and Harrodsburg Road on the northwest corner that floods primarily because when the state widened Harrodsburg Road they didn't put any detention in and all the water comes down on his property we're going to deal with that situation so we get we get that issue resolved and then in the glades when that subdivision was developed back in the mid 80s early 90s the developer only put in drainage swales in the backyards of those properties and since they were approved for development either the builders or the homeowners have have covered that drainage swale up and now the water doesn't have anywhere to go except to flow obviously downhill and there are several properties that have flooding problems because of properties upstream either the builder did it or the homeowner put a deck or a garden or whatever and disrupts the flow of the water into the public storm sewer system we've got those people that allow us on their property we're going to address those issues and we've included that in our tiff application the third feature is as most of you know there's a strong movement to have public trails shared use trails bicycle and pedestrian we're proposing a public use trail that will be shared 10 feet wide from palomar center across the road from manowar in the existing shopping center all the way down Harrodsburg Road to the villages down there at South Elkhorn so there will be pedestrian connectivity from the other end of Palomar to our development and be an important linkage for the rest of the trail which is proposed really to be connected all the way to Nicholasville Road in the future. It's being built in those segments where it can be so that's that'll be an important part of what our tiff application is and then finally when we went through the exercise of our meeting with the neighbors a year ago proposed before the zone change a number of palomar hills residents were concerned about the problem now on harrodsburg road where people going northbound in the morning who wanted to go to frankfort or the airport for for work we cut through the neighborhood because there wasn't enough stacking distance at Harrodsburg and Manowar intersection in terms of cars to make a left-hand turn. Our proposal would be to expand that lane with this TIF proposal so as an additional 20 automobiles that could be stacked, then we could work with the Division of Traffic Engineering with the Urban County Government to help move cars at a longer signal green light turn there at Harrodsburg Road and Manowar. Those are very important features. That total amenity cost is somewhere around $3 million that would not take place without TIF approval. We still have to get TIF approval from the state to get these done and we're in the process of pursuing that options and you'll hear more detail about it. I'll have a brief PowerPoint presentation to share with you on the 28th. Finally, with respect to the access to the adjoining property Tom mentioned, as we indicated, the subdivision committee will show an access easement to that location, but not constructed to the property line. there's a substantial grade change in that particular area, and since there's no immediate plans or even foreseeable plans for the lodge property to be developed that we know of, we'd have to construct like a 10, 12, 15 foot retaining wall at that location, which we view as unnecessary and a pretty expensive proposition. But we will allow an access easement for future connectivity to the lodge where Tom indicated they're going to the south. So with that, I'd be happy to respond to any questions that you may have or that Ms. Stevens may raise in terms of what she has to share with the commission. Any questions for Mr. Simpson? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. in constructing a special sewer line to South Elkhorn, that will help fulfill your cap? Yes, we've actually already got approval for our cap. We've discussed all of these proposed public infrastructure improvements with the staff of the government. I know the Division of Water Environmental Quality very much endorses eliminating the pump stations, so everything goes gravity flow into the sanitary sewer system. That would be a big help for them in terms of future maintenance of those pump stations that otherwise would be installed without TIF application approval. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Penn. Bruce, I'm a little bit concerned. Is the sewer line down to Ramsey's down that way, Is that conditional on TIF approval, or is that going to happen regardless? Yes. That is conditional on the TIF approval. If we don't get the TIF approval, then we have a right to connect up to the Palomar system. Okay. And that's the route we'd have to go because there's no line. I understand. But I just wanted to be sure I knew what was in the TIF and what wasn't in the TIF. Yeah, that's probably the most important element, I would say. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, is there anyone in the audience who'd like to, okay, sir? You'd like to speak? This is the time for citizens to. Hello, I'm Vicki Stevens, and I reside at 2020 Glade Lane, which my property is abuts to the development property. my tiny little yard. So I have a particular interest in how this goes. And one of my big concerns that I want to talk about today is there are at least four homes that are no longer owned by or occupied by the people whose names appear on this layout, this map. And the developers have been pretty good about notifying me by name and address for these different meetings, but I'm curious about these new people, at least four that back up directly to the property, and then one more just across the street on Glade. Two more, actually. So I'd like to have some assurance that the right people are getting notifications. They may not care as much as I do, but I think they'll care in the long run. Okay, fine. Do I need- We'll get back to that in just a minute. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this particular proposal? Yes, sir. Come on forward. I'm Don Hollison. I'm president of the Glades Association. I'd like to mention that there are two new neighbors on the side that borders the shopping center. And those both have been talked to and addressed by me about the situation. Now, there's two across the street from the Glade Court that just moved in, and one has a granddaughter that lives down the street. and then I also spoke with her and her granddaughter and her daughter and granddaughter and she knows it. The other lady lives next door to her and the reason she didn't get in as soon as she could her daughter was sick but she's very much aware of the shopping center and has no complaints whatsoever. As far as the other side, back side, there's one person that moved next door. there's one vacant house and nobody lives there yet and as far as I know we have I don't think we have any other new neighbors that have moved in there okay thank you just like to make that aware anyone else like to speak to this not yet ma'am just meant don't worry you'll get a chance anyone else like to speak to this particular okay first of all the applicant do you have any additional additional things, any comments, and then ma'am we'll come back to you. We sent out I think it was over 225 notifications with stamp self-addressed envelopes like we always do and submitted them to the staff. And so we thought we'd send notifications to everybody. Don Hollis, as he indicated, he's kind of the mayor of the Glades and stays actively involved with all the neighbors. I mean, if there's some error in the, if, you know, some of the people may not be owners of the property, it goes to the owner, so I don't know. But, I mean, if Ms. Stevens has some, if there's some corrections, if changes, we can certainly update, though, but I'm not aware of them. Okay. Ms. Stevens, did you have another question or a comment? Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Well, I'm certain that Don Hollis has made personal contact with these people. I take him at his word on that. He's really been a strong advocate for the developers when he's made the case on their behalf that all the neighbors should sign off without question on this. But my concern is, even though those same people may have been contacted by Don Hollis, are they receiving the mailings talking about the neighborhood meetings, these sort of meetings with the planning commission? I mean, to me, I think that's important that they stay, that everyone stays informed about it. And that's what, I don't feel very reassured by that. Okay, we'll let the staff address because they are the ones who sends out the notices, so we'll see what they have to say. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. Mr. Martin. I would just like to address the issue of the names on the plan. This plan is governed by Article 21 of your zoning ordinance. It requires that the developer put the final record plat information of the adjoining property on the plan or the names of the adjoining property owners. So, again, we have the record plan information. They also added the owners. My point is I wouldn't use the ownership names of adjoining property owners as necessarily a source of notification. I want to make that clear and hope that the commission understands and hope that the citizens understand. understand they didn't even have to put any property owners names on this plan they could have just put the record plan on there so notification is a different issue and the source of the ownership addresses is a different issue than the plan that you see before you and certainly as you all are aware normally they would use pva information to compile an ownership list and send out notification I just want to be sure that that's understood. Well, before you leave, any questions related to that from the commission? Now, let me get clarification because I'm the slow one up here on this thing. You're saying that you don't, based on this plat, you don't have to notify, no notification is necessary. Plans don't require notification unless requested. And then notification is provided. But, again, I'm saying this plan should not be relied upon for whom to notify, because they didn't have to put the names on this plan. They could have just put the record. In other words, they need to use a different source to come up with their list of people to notify. Okay. Yes, Ms. Wade? i would just add that the applicant agreed to do mailed notification at the time of the council action so in lieu of or in the midst of talking about whether the council should have a public hearing mr simpson agreed on behalf of the applicant to send notice to the 500 foot notification area so they voluntarily did that and mr simpson and his staff brought the notice letters to us and we check the list against the letters and he can tell us whether they've updated the list since the zone change or if it was the same list it was the same same list that we mailed the zone change i think if any case is reflective neighborhood outreach it's been this case we had i may own that we had three different meetings with the neighborhood prior to the planning commission uh hearing we had a meeting with the glades we had a meeting with the entire neighborhood we had a meeting with the uh with the board of directors before we filed the zone change and then i sent out individual letters for a meeting that we had for 500 feet before the letter went out notifying them about the hearing itself planning commission so you know we've had five different meetings with the neighbors before today and we have Woodford has made it crystal clear to me that he wanted total transparency of everything that we're going to be doing because he knew there were going to be a lot of questions asked about it and we wanted everybody to understand so we would eliminate any ambiguity about what our plans were and Vicki has been in all the neighborhood meetings that we've had I know so and we fully intend to do that as we move forward in the next phases of this development so I think we've we've certainly reached out to the neighbors we have a history of doing so and we will continue to do so and to the extent there's changes that are needed to notify people we will certainly notify them it is on the Palomar Hills neighborhood website addition to what we've sent out there's that kind of information so we'll do whatever is necessary okay thank you I'm going to ask if any Commission members have any questions Mr. Pohl so Miss Stevens has identified four properties that are mislabeled on the plan I'm just wondering if there's a if we can get assurance that staff or somebody will check to ensure that the uh that those properties that she's identified are being properly contacted the answer to that is yes sir we will verify um the next time they file their plan that they will update the list to notify the correct property owners okay any other questions from the commission members to anyone in the applicant either the staff or anyone else let me say Ms. Stevens how do you feel yeah you can go to the microphone I mean we don't have much of a crowd here today normally speaking we have a very formal way of doing these things that helps me a lot to understand that the PVA ownership is being used at least at some point in this process as the source for the owner's names and addresses. However, I just want to be sure that it's updated because since this started, there are six on the small stretch of Glade, four of which back up to the property that have changed ownership. So it could be they have the right list, and they've made these adjustments in ownership. However, I'd like to know with some certainty, and I will affirm that, as the developers have claimed, I have received many notices along the way, sufficient notice. So that's not an issue that they're doing that part. It's just are they going to the right people? That's my real concern. Well, the staff has indicated they'll do what they can to make sure that. And to the developer's credit, I've been on this council for a little while, and I think my colleagues have well, too. They've gone out of their way to make sure that they have that complete transparency. So we like it when they do that type of activity, but we still understand. sometimes it doesn't work with the community as such but thank you thank you okay anything else for the if not I'll close that part of the meeting and bring it back to the Commission for additional discussion and our motion Mr. Penn? Yes, at the time of zone change, this was a long zone change hearing and I'm on record as saying that I was really concerned about the development plan and the zone change being the size of the property and some of the issues that were put on there as placeholders. I want to say that Mr. Webb, you and Mr. Simpson, your whole crew have addressed those things very well for me. I think the catch next time is the next development plan that comes in because to your statement, Ms. Stevens, there's a lot more houses that come down that back up to whatever that next development plan is going to be. So it's important that we continue to do this. But I think as far as the way this thing operates, you all have done exemplary. woodford i appreciate what you're doing with this because this pretty much sets the stage for how we're going to operate going forward and this is a big enough piece of property that it's very visible and it's important that we do this right for both sides of this thing so thank you all for what you've done mr allines thank you mr chair i could say the same thing uh but i'm going to simplify this and simply agree with mr. Penn and then also add to the fact for miss Steven's sakes you know really seems like the homeowners association and the applicant has attempted anyway to reach out to everybody and I would throw it into a little bit different environment we often hear in a different world today that if you see something say something so don't be afraid to reach out to your neighbors. If you're ready I'm willing for a motion. Yeah you can throw a motion on the table. Mr. Chair I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 19-3 Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association property with the 14 noted conditions. Okay it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owen, seconded by Mr. Bruce Nichol that we approve PLN MJDP 19-3 Hoover and Ford to fill part evangelistic association properties with the 14 noted conditions by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you all. Thank you. Good afternoon. We have revised conditions, once again, for Richardson, MJDP 19-8 Richardson property amended. This is a portion of Richardson. We have Childsburg Road here. Hayes Boulevard comes up around here. This is Richmond Road out this way. When you go into the subdivision, back in this corner here, we have townhomes and condominiums. Edith J. Hayes Middle School is up in this location up at the top here. We had some concerns over this during the subdivision committee meeting. We received a revised plan. I'm sorry, but I forgot to tell you all. We did receive an affidavit and a photo picture posted for this being in the expansion area. So we did get that part. There was some discussion over the map on the number of units, and they sent us in a revised plan, and we were able to get the math correct. So we have the correct number of units on each condo, and it adds up to the site statistics. So we are good to go. So that's why you can see we cleaned up a couple of the conditions, and it leaves us with five conditions because with this being the expansion area, you can also have, you should have a copy of an EAMP report showing how they meet that. And so it would be up to the finding that you all agreed to that this meets the EAMP. If there's any other questions. Any questions for Ms. Gold? Okay, applicant. Good afternoon, my name is John Barlow. I'm the owner of Commonwealth Designs Inc and I am the developer. I'm here to entertain any questions you might have. Okay, any questions? Silent group today, you know. I'm sorry, what? I said it's a silent group today. Yeah. Well, I think Mr. Penn has one. Well, for the record, the reason the subdivision committee represented postponement was Mr. Barlow and one of his representatives weren't there at the subdivision committee meeting. I don't think it was the fact that we didn't have, you know, the plan wasn't fine. It's just the fact we didn't have an opportunity to talk to you about the plan. I apologize. That's quite all right. I just want you to understand why we did. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, if there are no questions, I think that's it, sir. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular proposal or agenda item? Anyone on the commission have any other thoughts or questions? If not, then we are ready to entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 18-8 Richardson property located 320 Hannah Todd's Place Lexington with the five conditions recommended by staff. Just a question, do we have to recognize this findings as well? Well, that is part of condition number five, is that you're accepting the report. Okay, we're in good shape. Thank you. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn and seconded by Mr. Healy-Bell that we approve PLNMJDP 19-8 Richardson property as amended with the five noted conditions by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. And that motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. If you all will turn to another revised conditions page. This is for PLNMJDP-19-11 for Enterprise Business Center. This is located at 817 Winchester Road. The purpose of this amendment is to add three proposed buildings. Right here, here, and here. And then also an expansion to the existing building. We've had a number of items addressed with the resubmission that we received on march 12th items 10 through 14 so we now have some more information on the plan the purpose of the amendment the proposed use of the new buildings existing and proposed easements building heights and the floor area ratio we had a discussion item at the subcommittee meeting regarding the ability to meet the tree canopy requirements per article 26 of the zoning ordinance just to ensure that that is being met we're asking the applicant to provide a landscape exhibit just to document that for us and finally we are asking for tree protection plan note number six to be deleted from the plan it's just not applicable in this case that note pertains to a 20 percent tree canopy requirement and this is in the i1 zone and it only requires a 10 percent and with that i'll open up to the committee for any questions okay any questions okay the applicant thank you so we're deleting members of the commission I'm Mark McCain I'm in agreement with with what they're asking for I assume I thought it was clear on the plan but if it's just an exhibit showing where the trees are I'll be happy to do that any questions Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this plan? Okay, then we'll bring it back to the commission here. Let me get clarification. The conditions provided by staff, Mr. Penn was just asking me, wait a minute, where are we now? Will you delete tree protection plan, note number six? Yes. Yes, that's correct. Delete number 11. It's revised conditions. Oh, okay. i got you okay thank you if there's no other comments by the commission then we're ready for a motion i think you push the button okay oh mr poe mr chair regarding uh pln mjdp 19-11 enterprise business center i move to approve uh subject to the staff recommended uh 11 conditions oh it's 10. oh we're deleting number 11 so 10 conditions okay it's been moved by mr graham pole and second by miss who was the seconder i didn't oh miss carolyn plumley that we approve pln mjdp 19-11 enterprise business center with the 10 notifications by staff any other discussion on the motion it's 11. please vote when it comes up on your screens does it matter that motion carries i think i think he thought that 11. thank you mr chairman i just want to point out um note 11 is actually not deleting the item it's just deleting a note on the plan so this is actually 11 items so actually they're 11 items i'm sorry uh with the maker of the motion agree to that 11 items seconder would agree to that okay then the motion will be amended to suggest that we approve the plan with the 11 notifications identified by staff thank you okay I think we have one more item to do under the Commission items right good afternoon chairman Wilson our last item is a public facility review that the staff received from the university of kentucky health care system for a property located at 1201 south limestone and the applicant is proposing to reuse an existing structure and so it's really more of a notification to the plant planning commission about that change of use on the property the property is located at 1201 south broadway and it's part of district three it's a little bit bit hard to see there. The properties are three. If I go back for a minute, it's the brown shaped property on the west side of South Limestone, which becomes Nicholasville Road. On the east side is the hospital site, and on this corner is currently a hotel of sorts. And the site is sort of an odd shape there, but it does have a South Limestone address. the building itself actually fronts on Waller. So again, this is the site. Here's the structure that has frontage along Waller, but does continue to have a South Limestone address. And if we zoom in on the site itself, this is its own tract and not part of the public facility review. Here is the existing structure that has been a hotel or lodging for the university hospital for some time. And the University of Kentucky Healthcare System is now proposing to change the use of that structure to offices, training rooms, and a conference room, larger conference rooms. And then it has parking associated with the structure that wraps, again, around this structure on the other lot. They do not have access to the side street nor to South Limestone. Their access is here on Waller currently. The site is covered by a final development plan. This is from 2001, and it was built in conformance with the final development plan from that time. So the staff was not concerned about physical improvements on the site, as we typically review pfrs for those kind of improvements site improvements and building improvements for new buildings and so typically you would have the planning commission look at that in terms of how can we make improvements to what the applicant is asking for in this case the site is already built out the building is constructed the applicant may need building permits from the state to move walls and plumbing and that sort of thing but and so we would recommend obviously that they secure those but since there are no site improvements the staff didn't have any recommendations for any changes on the site mr hunt is here representing the university on the plan is that true and can answer any questions about it i will say that the conversion from residential to office space does increase the parking requirement or would have the staffs under the impression that the university in using this site would be parking mostly off-site at their parking garages or the university often times has staff or visitors park at the commonwealth stadium and the shuttle system kind of helps people get around so the staff did review this in light of the comprehensive plan which is required for pfrs and did find that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of promoting health care and entities related to educational and health care since this is the university's healthcare system that's asking for the change and they'll want to do meeting and conference centers here but that would support the healthcare needs of our community in general and of course the university in supporting educational needs of our community. In addition, the property's been vacant for a little bit of time and so this would allow for an adaptive reuse, a new use of an existing structure so the university wouldn't be demolishing it and building a new structure which would be a positive as well. There's some more information in the staff report about the existing or previous use for 16 lodging units at the property but again it's not changing the square footage of the building it's about a 40,000 square foot building that they're reusing. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the public facility review for the university and then, again, Mr. Hunt is here as well. Okay. Any questions for Ms. Wade? I don't believe we have any questions. And so I think the reason why we're reviewing this is because, according to KRS statutes, we're required to, in light of the fact that any proposal for acquisition or disposition of land for public facilities or changes in the character, location, or extent of structures are land for public facilities, excluding state and federal highways and public utilities and common carriers by rail mentioned in this section shall be referred to the commission for review. So that's what we're doing. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. With that, then we'll accept the motion. If you have additional questions. I just need a motion for approval for this PFR 2019-1, University of Kentucky Health Care. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of plan of PFR, I'm sorry, 2019-1, University of Kentucky Health Care, noting the staff report and the findings and that it is in compliant with the comprehensive plan. okay mr. McGowan moves mr. Graham poll seconds we approve PFR 2019-1 University of Kentucky Health Care with understanding that it does comply with our comprehensive plan and it also complies with our requirements under KRS 100-324 any other discussion on the motion not would you please vote when it comes up on your screens thank you that motion carries thank you mr. Duncan Anything else? Mr. Chair, did you all take care of the bonds? Yes, we did. Okay, thank you. The only other thing from staff is we do have a Planning Commission work session next Thursday in the Phoenix Building, third floor at 1.30. It will not be comprehensive plan related, so we're going to start getting back to the business of bringing updates to you through other things that are going on with the Division of Planning, So we hope you all can be there next Thursday at 1.30. Okay, thank you. Ms. Plumlee has something she'd like to bring. I have a question for Mr. Duncan. I hear there's a Senate Bill 346 in Frankfurt. Could you give us an update on that? Yes, I can. And Mr. Chair, why don't I go to the lectern to do that? Okay, go ahead. Thank you. That's a good move. Mr. Chair, I think it would be better for me to address you from here because to answer Ms. Plumlee's questions takes more than just a few words. So I'll just stand up for you here. Ms. Plumlee references some legislation that came to our attention yesterday, so about 36 hours ago or so, and it appears to be part of economic development issue that the legislature is considering, and it offers some pretty stark changes to the way comprehensive planning would be done in the community, And it appears that much of it is very much targeted at some of the decisions that we have recently made. Primarily, this amendment to this bill would require that we evaluate our vacant land to ensure that we have no less than 20 years worth of vacant land for economic development purposes, housing purposes, other community purposes. And that evaluation shall be based on the absorption and intensities and densities of land over the past 10 years. And this is a departure from the way we do our evaluations. This would compel us to look backwards only at what our future needs are. And while that is an input that we provide to you during the comprehensive planning process, we also think it's extremely important to look at projections and emerging trends and best practices, infrastructure, other inputs in the community, not just what we've done in the past. And so that's very troublesome for us because we believe that that would then, of course, require us to have and recognize in our land use element of the comprehensive plan a substantial amount of vacant land far beyond what we have now, and therefore effectively upending the urban services. boundary, at least as we have planned it. So that's a big concern to us. It would also change the way that planning commissions review development plans, making them more ministerial, subject to specific standards, more ministerial-like subdivisions that you do. And our concern about that, of course, is that it takes out the planning commission's and perhaps even the council's ability to look at information in the community and the specific needs of that location of that development and make a determination about whether that's an appropriate proposal. And then finally, and there are a number of things in here, but those two, and then finally, This requirement, according to this legislation, would have to be met by June 30th of 2020. So a mere 15 months from now, we would have to have done this evaluation of our last 10 years worth of absorption and intensity and a projection of 20 years worth of growth for that, which means then, of course, we're back in the comprehensive planning business for the next year. and we're not pursuing the new process that we've got planned. We're not pursuing the Nicholasville Road corridor that we've got planned and all the other implementation tasks that are waiting for us with this plan. It certainly would undo the majority effort of this planning commission just a mere three weeks ago. It would undo the unanimous decision of the Urban County Council at the end of 2017 about the urban service boundary. And more importantly, or as important, it would certainly go against what a remarkable number of citizens throughout the public input process told us their preference was for how to manage and plan for growth for the future. So once we became aware of this, our staff got together and studied this very carefully, bounced ideas off each other. We worked with the law department to make sure we were reading this, interpreting this correctly. And the call started coming in from other places, from the Kentucky League of Cities, the Kentucky Association of Counties, the American Planning Association, Kentucky American Planning Association, Fayette Alliance, other organizations started weighing in on this, including the administration. and so we have taken efforts that we think are appropriate to let this be known to the legislature that this is not something that is in the best interest of Fayette County for our purposes, but we don't think it's necessarily in the best interest of any of the communities in Kentucky that regulate their land through zoning. It truly does take away so much local control of what we already have for making our future development decisions. And that's just very troublesome to us. And we feel that this is a direct reaction to the comprehensive plan that was just adopted and a way to override your decision, the council's decision, and certainly the input from the citizens of the community. So, Mr. Chair, Ms. Plumlee, that's a summary of what we believe this legislation will do and what our response to it has been. I'd be glad to address it. Mr. Penn has a question for you. We looked at this from the farmer's perspective, Kentucky Farm Bureau looked at it, and in their policy book they say that they want to keep planning and zoning under local control instead of state control. and if you amend KRS 100 to put in that amendment what you've effectively done is taken control away from the local planning commissions of the counties that have them which are a lot more than we think they are and you've put it in the hands of the state because the state now determines what you can and cannot do with this land so it is what it is it'll come out the way it does but it's very short-sighted and what my concern is that there was a tremendous overreaction to what happened with this comp plan and in a rush to try to change it it created something that if it passes will directly affect every planning commission ever planning staff in the state of Kentucky I hope that was not the intent but that would be the result of it as far as we can tell and I just want to share that with you because that's that's where we are as of this moment. I have a question as I understood this was an amendment that it was attached to 246 and as an amendment you don't have to have a reading on it but now it's going back to a 346 or something like that but it is it's a standalone bill now right I think it's still no it's still attached still an amendment that there was some confusion as to whether that was we were getting the right information about which bill it was assigned to or which bill it was attached to or whether it was just attached to the wrong bill and they clarified that by putting it back on on the correct bill but it's still an amendment, an amendment that came up very quickly as part of a bill that had been introduced through the proper... Do you have any idea what it was, what is it attached to now? It has 346. What is 346? I guess that's my question. What is that? It's an economic development bill that would, let's see, it talks about the aspirations of prosperity and economic security and job creation, business expansion. And it talks about the role of the cabinet for economic development and the Department of Local Government would be preparing and submitting biannually to the General Assembly a report detailing, and then it talks about best practices for municipal and counties for assisting in creation of expansion and any practices and regulations in place, it's more something that the state level would be doing. So that seems to be the original bill compelling the Cabinet and the DLG to put together this report about what best practices are for economic development. I got you. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that update. How much time now? I don't know the process at this stage of the game. Are they deciding that? I think we're down to hours, Mr. Chair. Today, as I understand it, is the last day to vote on these kinds of things. I believe there's a day to come back later in the month to address vetoes or anything like that. But I believe today is the last day that they can actually vote on legislation. Okay. Yeah, Ms. Plumlee has another. Thank you. I have a question for Jim and for legal. Is it too late for us or should we consider a resolution that we oppose this amendment for the reasons you have stated in your discussion? Ms. Plumlee, Ms. Jones and I talked about this. I'm not sure that there is a practical purpose for doing that at this point. I don't know how this word would be conveyed in any sort of meaningful way. and in fact the decision may be being made at this moment in that regard. However, symbolically, of course, a word from this planning commission on the official record would indicate your concern about this. Okay. Anything else? Well, thank you, Mr. Duncan, for that update. Any other business to come before this body? If not, and without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Turn around This man who lives inside