# URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS - May 8, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · May 8, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/490 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/490?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-05-08 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 1, 2026 - **Length**: 17,575 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on May 8, 2008, at 1:32 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding as chair. The Commission addressed 15 agenda items during the session, taking a total of 15 motions and votes throughout the meeting. The Commission heard one public comment during the proceedings. The meeting was characterized by significant postponement activity, with seven development-related items being postponed to future meetings, including Thomas Communications Inc. Units 1-C and 1-D, Kingston Hall Unit 2, Marshall Property Unit 2, Palumbo Property, Hillenmeyer Property, Blackford Town Center, and High Mount Subdivision. Despite these postponements, the Commission successfully approved eight items, including the meeting minutes, a consent agenda, and six development projects: Tuscany Unit 5, NDC Property Unit 1-A Lot 16 (Wellington), Lakeview Island Unit 3 (The Landings), Gess Property Units 5-C through 5-F, and Overbrook Land Company. The Commission also approved the cancellation of their scheduled May 15, 2008 work session. ## Attendance The Commission meeting on May 8, 2008 had nine members present and two absent. **Present:** • Randall Vaughn • Linda Godfrey • Ed Holmes (arrived late) • Carolyn Richardson • Joan Whitman • James Mahan • Mike Cravens • Neill Day • Frank Penn **Absent:** • Lyle Aten • Lynn Roche-Phillips **Late Arrival:** • Ed Holmes The meeting proceeded with a quorum of nine commissioners in attendance, representing the majority of the commission membership. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission conducted 15 votes during the May 8, 2008 meeting, all of which passed unanimously by voice vote. **Administrative Items** The Commission first approved the minutes from the March 13, 2008 meeting on a motion by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Frank Penn, with all 8 members present voting in favor [timestamp: 00:00]. **Postponements** Seven development items were postponed to the June 12, 2008 meeting: - PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F (Thomas Communications, Inc., Unit 1-C and 1-D) on motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Linda Godfrey [timestamp: 02:00] - DP 2008-66 (Marshall Property, Unit 2) on motion by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 04:00] - DP 2008-51 (Palumbo Property) on motion by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Frank Penn [timestamp: 05:00] - PLAN 2008-9P (Hillenmeyer Property) on motion by Neill Day, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 06:00] - DP 2008-60 (Blackford Town Center) on motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 07:00] - PLAN 2008-44F (High Mount Subdivision) on motion by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 08:00] DP 2007-100 (Kingston Hall, Unit 2) was postponed indefinitely on motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Linda Godfrey [timestamp: 03:00]. **Approvals** The Commission approved the consent agenda items on motion by Linda Godfrey, seconded by Joan Whitman [timestamp: 09:00]. Individual development approvals included: - PLAN 2007-52P (Tuscany, Unit 5) with conditions 1-12, omitting condition 13 [timestamp: 10:00] - PLAN 2007-201F (NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 16 Wellington) with subdivision compliance conditions [timestamp: 11:00] - PLAN 2008-28F (Lakeview Island, Unit 3) with blue sheet conditions and waiver approval [timestamp: 12:00] - PLAN 2005-280F through 2005-283F (Gess Property, Units 5-C through 5-F) reapproval with added permit conditions [timestamp: 13:00] - DP 2007-151 (Overbrook Land Company) with 16 conditions including pedestrian facilities [timestamp: 14:00] The Commission also voted to cancel the May 15, 2008 work session on motion by James Mahan, seconded by Linda Godfrey [timestamp: 15:00]. All votes included the full Commission membership of 9 members after Ed Holmes joined the meeting. ## Public Comment The Commission received one public comment during the May 8, 2008 meeting. **Mr. Tucker** addressed the Commission regarding water quality certification issues [timestamp: 13:30]. He raised concerns about the 401 Water Quality Certificate for the Gess Property, specifically noting that the certificate had expired. Mr. Tucker suggested that this expiration could potentially constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act, bringing this matter to the Commission's attention for consideration. The 401 Water Quality Certificate is a federal requirement under the Clean Water Act that ensures proposed activities in waterways meet state water quality standards. Mr. Tucker's comment highlighted potential compliance issues related to this certification requirement for the Gess Property. ## Contested Items During the May 8, 2008 Commission meeting, one contested item emerged regarding water quality compliance for a local development project. **401 Water Quality Certificate Expiration** Mr. Tucker raised concerns about the expiration of the 401 Water Quality Certificate for the Gess Property development. He argued that the expired certificate could constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act, suggesting that continued work on the property without a valid water quality certification would be legally problematic. The 401 Water Quality Certificate is a federal requirement under the Clean Water Act that ensures any activity that may result in discharge into waters of the United States meets state water quality standards. Mr. Tucker's objection centered on the potential environmental and legal implications of proceeding with development activities while the certificate had lapsed. The nature of this opposition appeared to stem from community concerns about environmental compliance and proper regulatory oversight of the development project. However, the extracted meeting data does not indicate the specific outcome of this challenge or how the Commission addressed Mr. Tucker's concerns about the expired certification. This contested item highlights ongoing tensions between development interests and environmental compliance requirements, with community members actively monitoring regulatory compliance for local projects. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The Commission reviewed the minutes from their March 13, 2008 meeting for approval. The discussion was led by key speakers Linda Godfrey and Frank Penn. The Commission examined the previously distributed minutes to ensure accuracy and completeness of the record from the March meeting. Following their review, the Commission voted to approve the minutes as presented. The minutes were successfully approved without any noted corrections or amendments, allowing the meeting to proceed to subsequent agenda items. ## Thomas Communications, Inc., Unit 1-C and 1-D [timestamp: 02:00] The Commission considered agenda items PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F regarding Thomas Communications, Inc., Unit 1-C and 1-D. Rory Kahly addressed the Commission regarding these plans. The applicant requested a postponement of both plans to the Commission's June 12, 2008 meeting. The Commission granted the postponement request without further discussion. No concerns were raised, and no debate occurred regarding the merits of the plans themselves, as the matter was simply deferred to allow the applicant additional time. The outcome was that both PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F for Thomas Communications, Inc., Unit 1-C and 1-D were postponed to the June 12, 2008 Commission meeting. ## Kingston Hall, Unit 2 [timestamp: 03:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2007-100 for Kingston Hall, Unit 2 during the May 8, 2008 meeting. Rory Kahly, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission regarding this development plan. Rather than proceeding with a presentation or formal review of the project, Kahly requested that the Commission grant an indefinite postponement of the plan. The Commission accepted the applicant's request without extended discussion or debate. No concerns were raised by commissioners, and no additional speakers addressed this item. The outcome was a postponement of DP 2007-100, with no specified timeline for when the applicant might return to present the Kingston Hall, Unit 2 development plan to the Commission for future consideration. ## Marshall Property, Unit 2 [timestamp: 04:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-66 regarding the Marshall Property, Unit 2 development plan. The discussion was brief, as the applicant had requested a postponement of the item. Rory Kahly addressed the Commission regarding the postponement request. The applicant sought to delay consideration of the development plan to allow additional time for preparation or revisions to the proposal. The Commission granted the applicant's request without extensive debate. The Marshall Property, Unit 2 plan was postponed to the Commission's June 12, 2008 meeting, where it would be reconsidered at that time. No substantive discussion of the development plan's merits, concerns, or specific details occurred during this meeting due to the postponement request. The item was moved to the June agenda to allow the applicant the requested additional time. ## Palumbo Property [timestamp: 05:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-51 regarding the Palumbo Property during the May 8, 2008 meeting. Gary Roland addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant, requesting that consideration of the development plan be postponed to the June 12, 2008 meeting. The Commission granted the applicant's request for postponement without further discussion or debate on the merits of the proposed development plan. No concerns were raised regarding the postponement request, and no details about the specific nature of the Palumbo Property development were presented during this brief agenda item. The matter was officially postponed to the June 12, 2008 Commission meeting as requested. ## Hillenmeyer Property [timestamp: 06:00] The Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2008-9P regarding the Hillenmeyer Property during the May 8, 2008 meeting. Tom Martin addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Martin requested that the plan be postponed to the Commission's June 12, 2008 meeting. No detailed presentation of the proposal was made during this session, as the focus was solely on the postponement request. The Commission granted the applicant's request, and PLAN 2008-9P for the Hillenmeyer Property was officially postponed to the June 12, 2008 meeting for further consideration. ## Blackford Town Center [timestamp: 07:00] The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-60 for the Blackford Town Center development plan during the May 8, 2008 meeting. However, the item did not proceed to full discussion as originally scheduled. Tom Martin, representing the applicant, requested that the Blackford Town Center plan be postponed to allow additional time for preparation. The Commission granted this request without debate. The item has been rescheduled for consideration at the Commission's June 12, 2008 meeting. No details about the proposed development or specific reasons for the postponement were discussed during this brief agenda item. **Outcome:** The Blackford Town Center development plan (DP 2008-60) was postponed to the June 12, 2008 Commission meeting at the applicant's request. ## High Mount Subdivision [timestamp: 08:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2008-44F regarding the High Mount Subdivision during their May 8, 2008 meeting. Tom Martin presented the staff recommendation to postpone consideration of the High Mount Subdivision plan to the June 12, 2008 meeting. The postponement was requested due to a lack of response from the applicant. No further details were provided regarding the nature of the subdivision proposal or what specific information or materials were needed from the applicant to proceed with the review process. The Commission accepted the staff recommendation and postponed the item to the June 12, 2008 meeting without discussion or debate. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 09:00] The Commission reviewed and approved the consent agenda during the May 8, 2008 meeting. Bill Sallee participated in the discussion of these routine administrative items. The consent agenda consisted of items deemed non-controversial and suitable for approval without individual discussion. These typically include administrative matters, routine approvals, and procedural items that require formal Commission action but do not warrant separate debate. The Commission approved the consent agenda items as presented, with no items removed for separate consideration or discussion. **Outcome:** Approved ## Tuscany, Unit 5 [timestamp: 10:00] The Commission reviewed PLAN 2007-52P for Tuscany, Unit 5 during the May 8, 2008 meeting. The agenda item was presented as a discussion item regarding the development plan. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Rory Kahly, who addressed various aspects of the proposed unit development. The Commission engaged in deliberations regarding the plan's specifications and requirements. Following the discussion, the Commission approved the Tuscany, Unit 5 plan with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting materials, but the approval indicates the Commission found the plan acceptable with certain modifications or requirements to be met. The approval of PLAN 2007-52P represents the Commission's endorsement of the development proposal for this unit within the Tuscany project, subject to the stated conditions that were established during the review process. ## NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 16 (Wellington) [timestamp: 11:00] The Commission reviewed Plan 2007-201F for the NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 16 located in Wellington. The agenda item was presented as a discussion item requiring Commission action. Key speakers during the discussion included Bill Sallee and Ashley Ward, who provided details about the proposed development plan. The Commission engaged in deliberations regarding the specific conditions and requirements associated with this Wellington property development. Following the presentation and discussion of the plan details, the Commission moved to approve Plan 2007-201F with conditions. The approval indicates that while the Commission found the overall proposal acceptable, certain stipulations were attached to ensure compliance with local development standards and regulations. The Commission's decision to approve the plan with conditions represents a positive outcome for the NDC Property development, allowing the project to move forward while maintaining appropriate oversight through the specified conditions. ## Lakeview Island, Unit 3 (The Landings) [timestamp: 12:00] The Commission reviewed PLAN 2008-28F for Lakeview Island, Unit 3 (The Landings) during the May 8, 2008 meeting. The agenda item was presented as a discussion item regarding the development plan. Key speakers during the discussion included Cheryl Gallt and Tom Martin, who provided information and addressed questions from the Commission regarding the proposed development. The Commission discussed the plan and determined that approval would be granted subject to certain conditions. While the specific details of the conditions and the nature of the concerns raised during the discussion are not detailed in the available materials, the Commission ultimately found the plan acceptable with the stipulated modifications. Following the discussion and consideration of the proposal, the Commission voted to approve PLAN 2008-28F for Lakeview Island, Unit 3 (The Landings) with the agreed-upon conditions. ## Gess Property, Units 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, 5-F [timestamp: 13:00] The Commission reviewed plans PLAN 2005-280F, PLAN 2005-281F, PLAN 2005-282F, and PLAN 2005-283F for the Gess Property development units 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, and 5-F. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Rory Kahly, who presented details about the four development units. The plans had previously been before the Commission and were being brought back for reconsideration with modifications. The Commission engaged in discussion regarding the specific conditions that would need to be attached to the approval of these development units. While the extracted data does not provide details about the specific conditions discussed or concerns raised during the deliberation, the Commission ultimately found the plans acceptable with the proposed conditions. Following their review and discussion of the four related plans, the Commission voted to reapprove all four units - 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, and 5-F - with conditions attached. The approval allows the Gess Property development to move forward with these specific phases of the project, subject to meeting the conditions established by the Commission during their review process. ## Overbrook Land Company [timestamp: 14:00] The Commission discussed agenda item DP 2007-151 regarding the Overbrook Land Company development plan. Key speakers during this discussion included Chris Taylor and Matt Carter. The development plan was presented to the Commission for review and consideration. During the discussion, the Commission evaluated the proposal and identified specific conditions that would need to be met for approval. Following their review and deliberation of the plan details, the Commission voted to approve DP 2007-151 for Overbrook Land Company, contingent upon the conditions discussed during the meeting. The approval allows the Overbrook Land Company project to move forward in the development process, subject to compliance with the stipulated requirements established by the Commission. ## Cancellation of May 15, 2008 Work Session [timestamp: 15:00] The Commission addressed the cancellation of their scheduled work session for May 15, 2008. Chris King presented the matter to the Commission for consideration. The Commission discussed and ultimately approved the cancellation of the May 15, 2008 work session. No specific concerns or objections were raised during the discussion regarding this scheduling change. The cancellation was formally approved by the Commission. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from March 13, 2008 meeting - **PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Thomas Communications, Inc., Unit 1-C and 1-D to June 12, 2008 - **DP 2007-100** — postponed (8-0): Indefinite postponement of Kingston Hall, Unit 2 - **DP 2008-66** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Marshall Property, Unit 2 to June 12, 2008 - **DP 2008-51** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Palumbo Property to June 12, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-9P** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Hillenmeyer Property to June 12, 2008 - **DP 2008-60** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Blackford Town Center to June 12, 2008 - **PLAN 2008-44F** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of High Mount Subdivision to June 12, 2008 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **PLAN 2007-52P** — passed (9-0): Approval of Tuscany, Unit 5 with conditions - **PLAN 2007-201F** — passed (9-0): Approval of NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 16 (Wellington) with conditions - **PLAN 2008-28F** — passed (9-0): Approval of Lakeview Island, Unit 3 (The Landings) with conditions - **PLAN 2005-280F, PLAN 2005-281F, PLAN 2005-282F, PLAN 2005-283F** — passed (9-0): Reapproval of Gess Property, Units 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, 5-F with conditions - **DP 2007-151** — passed (9-0): Approval of Overbrook Land Company with conditions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Cancellation of May 15, 2008 work session --- ## Full transcript So អំរីផបើរីជហើយREY�រចុប្រានបាមារមានែរីរ ួរ្កណនិឆសីជីយ្រែមវស្ថ។ នោះវ VND្នុងវ! ៊ជុំរូនអ ះោចិតស្សែលគាងះ់!? And top of page three these are both timeless communication incorporated at unit 1 C 1 D Items B and C we request a one month postponement to the June 12th hearing Okay Thank You mr. Kaley I guess staff is that correct June 12th is that 30-day? Postponement That is correct. Thank you. Okay. We have a request for a one-month postponement for plan 2008 dash 24 F Thomas communications Inc unit 1 dash C Till the June 12th meeting is there anyone the audience that would like to speak this request for postponement Seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement the plan 2008-224 F and plan 2008-24 25 F to the June 12th meeting second Okay, we have a motion and a second to postpone plan 2008-24 F and plan 2008-25 F Until the June 12th meeting all those in favor of the motion say aye Opposed say no motion carries. Thank you on page 5 Under development plans DP 2007 dash 100 Kingston Hall unit to request an indefinite postponement Thank You mr. Kaley We have a request for an indefinite postponement of DP 2007 dash 100 Kingston Hall unit to Located at 2356 Newtown Pike. Is there anyone in the audience that like to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman I move for indefinite postponement for DP 2007 dash 100 We have a motion and second for indefinite postponement all those in favor say aye Opposed say no motion carries. Thank you and on page 7 DP 2008 dash 66 Marshall property unit to request a one-month postponement to the June 12th hearing Thank You mr. Kaley we have a request for a one-month postponement for DP 2008 dash 66 Marshall property unit to located at 3,000 Leestown Road. Is there anyone in the audience like to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman for postponement of DP 2008 dash 66 to the June 12th meeting We have a motion and a second to postpone all those in favor say aye Opposed say no motion carries. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm Gary Rowland with Foster Rowland like to direct your attention to page 5 DP 2008 dash 51 Palumbo property. I'd like to request the one-month postponement Thank You mr. Rowland we have a request for a one-month postponement for DP 2008 dash 51 Palumbo property Located at 820 Lane Allen Road. Is there anyone the audience like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman for postponement of DP 2008 dash 51 to the June 12th meeting We have a motion in the second for one month's postponement all those in favor say aye Opposed say no motion carries. Thank you, sir Okay, are there any additional requests for postponements or withdrawal Okay, I guess I'll turn to the staff. Do we have any requests? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman on page 2 of your agenda Plan 2008 dash 9 P Hillenmayer property. We did receive a letter requesting a one-month postponement from the applicant Okay, thank you, mr. Martin we have a request from the applicant By letter to the staff for one month postponement of plan 2008 dash 9 P Hillenmayer property Located on Lucille Drive and Sandersville Road Is there anyone the audience like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of plan 2008 dash 9 P Hillenmayer property We have a motion in a second for postponement all those in favor say aye Opposed say no motion carries. Thank you. And mr. Chairman on page 6 of your agenda DP 2008 dash 60 the Blackford Town Center Staff did receive notification from that applicant as well requesting a one-month postponement Thank You, mr. Martin we have requests by letter of the applicant to the staff requesting a one-month postponement for DP 2008 dash 60 Blackford Town Center Located at 6600 Manowar Boulevard. Is there anyone in the audience like to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of DP 2008 day 60 to the June 12th meeting We have a motion and second for postponement all those in favor say aye Opposed say no Motion carries. Thank you. And mr. Chairman, there is one more plan on your agenda. It is on page 3 plan 2008 dash 44 F. I'm out subdivision unit 1 As I reported to you last month We have contacted the representatives on this plan and they have failed to respond To us and as late as yesterday. We tried to contact the attorney It is our recommendation that this plan be postponed Is there a particular Duration on this place you have a you may postpone till the next month. Yes, sir under the normal procedures All right We at request to staff In attempts to contact the applicant We have a request for a one-month postponement of plan 2008 dash 44 F I'm out subdivision unit 1 block a lot 17 located at 29 32 candlelight way Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement Seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement to the June 12th meeting for plan 2008 dash 44 F We have a motion second for postponement. All those in favor say aye Opposed say no motion carries. Thank you Are there any additional requests for postponements or withdrawal? At this time we'll move into our land subdivision items and our no discussion items at this time and I believe this the commissioners have In front of them the consent agenda and I will have mr. Sally review the consent agenda for the Commission Mr. Chairman, thank you members of the Commission. Good afternoon today We have our shortest consent agenda that we've ever had There are five items appearing on the consent agenda for development plans and one minor plan The first item appears on page 6 item D of your regular agenda. This is DP 2008-65 a final development plan amendment for mayhem property apartments. This property is located at 4,500 Manowar Boulevard The next item appears on page 7 item F on your regular agenda This is another amended final development plan DP 2008-67 Hamburg Place Farm Sir Barton Office Park lot E amended this property is located at 2452 Sir Barton Way The next item is the next item also on your regular agenda page 7 item G A final development plan amendment DP 2008-68 Hamburg Place Mall unit 2 amended. This is for property located at 1924 Pavilion Way final development plan on the consent agenda appears on page 8 item I of your agenda DP 2008-13 goo goo car wash. This is for property located at 1537 North Limestone There's one subdivision plan on your agenda as well. That is a minor subdivision plan It appears on page 8 item a of your regular agenda This is plan 2007-212 C Big Spring subdivision section 2 lots 15 and 16 amended This is for property located at 59 20 and 59 40 Winchester Road Mr. Chairman all five of these items are recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee And can be considered on the consent agenda unless someone wishes their removal Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Salih. You've heard the reading of the items Qualifying for the consent agenda. Is there anyone in the audience? That would like to have any of the items on the consent agenda heard Seeing none, are there any items for commission members on the consent agenda that They would like to see heard If not the chair will entertain a motion for acceptance of the consent agenda as presented Mr. Chairman, I move for acceptance of the consent agenda as presented We have a motion in a second for acceptance of the consent agenda All those in favor say aye All opposed say no Motion carries. Thank you Okay at this time we'll allow the staff a moment to set up and we'll have our First first plan I believe on page one You We will while staff setting up the chair will entertain a motion for the release and call the bonds Mr. Chairman, I move for the release of call on the bonds that are presented to us on the white memorandum Okay, we have a motion and a second for the release and call the bonds on the white memorandum all those in favor say aye Aye All those opposed say no motion carries. Thank you Mr. Martin, mr. Chairman members of the Commission first item on your agenda is on page one Preliminary plans plan 2007 52 P Tuscany unit 5 This plan is located out on Sir Barton Way and Winchester Road on the southwest corner of the property Here is a proposed connection here with war Admiral Way And again, it loops through this adjoining property with Belsheba. This is the Lowe's development and the Walmart Walmart the commercial development here again, you can look here. Here's that large development Here is Tuscany unit 5 This is a amended submission that staff did receive from the applicant You can see the cul-de-sac Street system here. We have a right in and right out proposed off of Sir Barton cul-de-sac parallel to Winchester Road in this area Is a townhouse proposed townhouse development. There are 23 units proposed in the townhouse development and The rest of the lots here are duplex lots, so there's actually a total of 135 units proposed for this property You can see on your agenda that This property and plan had been postponed several times and the subject to a lot of discussion between the applicant and staff We do have for you Two items that have been handed out one is your pink sheet That is revised staff recommendations on this plan the second a Gold sheet with attachments is a waiver request that is also associated with this plan In reviewing the new plan and as we presented to the subdivision committee last week There has a lot of answers and a lot of questions have been answered with this new submittal and you can see that we adjusted our Conditions accordingly The subdivision committee did recommend approval and it is subject to these additional conditions Some of the issues that you can see on your agenda is Again the area along Winchester Road. This is an HOA area proposed here the concern with this plan In lieu of their proposal was the relationship and the needs here with the extension of right-of-way a turn lane Conflict with those the applicant is proposing extensive landscaping in this area as well These were all issues that were discussed before the committee issues of great concern to the staff We also were concerned and have now reached an agreement about the right in and right out We believe that'll function fine traffic engineering agrees We have again asked for informational purposes. You could to see the alignment and how that will function The Applicant has also asked for a waiver and The waiver in this case is to not construct the sidewalk from approximately here all the way around To here if you can see that I know this is a little bit far away, but they're proposing a connection right in here over to the sidewalk system on Sir Barton Way and Again, there's an internal sidewalk system They're proposing it'll stop here And you can see from your waiver report that as they're pointed out. There's no residential units here is strictly the HOA area We have those again we have the issue through here now We have in working with Traffic engineering and other bodies determined that the right-of-way is adequate So there was no need for additional right-of-way the current right-of-way Will serve for a turn lane So that concern has been addressed on this new plan and with that information It does lead us to a discussion of The conflicts and the sidewalk and the waiver proposal and again staff was concerned about the utilities in the area in a potential conflict the Utilities exist in the state right-of-way that conflict therefore does not exist For the urban county government because we don't need any right-of-way. They're not going to be on our property It's a condition that in essence takes care of itself if the state needs them moved They shall be moved, and that's so that again that concern was removed for us The waiver as you can see from your report is a request to not construct a approximately 600 610 feet of sidewalk along that northern cul-de-sac Staff has reviewed this and we do in fact Recommend approval of the plan however We do have some concerns number one Although again We believe the system can work and that this omission may not and should not impact public safety This small section again through here. We have a concern about this connection and again You can see from the report in the waiver. We are recommending that that connection not be made here, but instead Guide pedestrians to the traffic signal and the pedestrian crossings that exist at this location We also are requesting and you can see as your condition of approval The construction of a sidewalk along the Winchester Road frontage Now we believe that that can provide a necessary and vital link to an overall system an overall pedestrian system for the entire area that will serve this development and neighborhood developments and With this one going away We believe a four-foot construction through here of approximately the same length this frontage is 611 feet We believe that'll help and you can see With that being built here's a picture of the overall system that we're considering and what we're looking at and how we're evaluating that frontage and its role in the system now With that presentation and you again can see that we are recommending approval of the waiver subject to conditions Mr.. Sally would like to Discuss the overall plan and put this system in a broad perspective for you Thank You mr. Martin Mr.. Chairman members of the Commission. Thank you We have rendered the zoning development plan the preliminary development plan for the entire Tuscany development To illustrate what the staff is thinking in making this somewhat unusual recommendation to you on the waiver request that's before you In to orient you we're near Winchester Road at Sir Barton Way and Actually unit 5 is the southwest corner of that intersection that Tom has described The waiver request is for the northern cul-de-sac which parallels that road in essence We're recommending the waiver if the sidewalk is instead built along the right-of-way line When this preliminary development plan was approved there were existing farm roads on the property that were anticipated for future pedestrian links Those are shown in yellow on this drawing. I'd like to orient you in relation to the unit before you There's some immediately to the southwest here That would also link up with some of unit 4 of Tuscany that has recently been developed Recorded and I would presume there's some home construction going on there now The only existing sidewalks in this area currently are along the frontage of Sir Barton here and in unit 4 here Those farm roads would not directly connect to those However, there are the streets that are planned to connect those two units according to the preliminary development plan There is thought to be a street connection here would have to be modified slightly at the two ends to match unit 5 That's before you currently there's also another street connection planned to Winchester Road at this location and the staff would presume that sidewalk construction would be an ordinary condition of those street constructions Will they be local or collector streets? Along the frontage however, there is no sidewalk automatically known because that is State Highway So the staff is recommending and believes it is very feasible to consider that this development would construct a pedestrian sidewalk Just adjacent to the right-of-way on the private property There is a conditional zoning restriction that calls for a 50-foot building line along this road So there will be plenty of room to have a 4-foot sidewalk constructed there Another option would be for the sidewalk to be along the State Highway But that is not under the control of the Planning Commission that would be under the control of the Highway Department That's why we're recommending that it be built on the private property instead as a condition to this approval That would only entail this small bit of frontage here And it's important to note that there is an 11 acre parcel that we've identified in the preliminary development plan That is still zoned agricultural It has not been approved for any development even if all of this system were put in place There is some unknown as to when or if this particular link could be made But I thank you for your attention I wanted to explain the overall concept of why the staff is making this recommendation today. Thank you. Mr. Martin will Conclude by going over the waiver report with you Thank you Mr. Chairman members of the Commission again, I will go over the conditions of the waiver report and the Revised conditions on your pink sheet as well The Staff Revised conditions are fairly standard. There are a couple that I would like to bring to your attention number eight on The revised states remove all references to a final development plan on this preliminary subdivision plan. And again That's a technical aspect, but one we think is important Because This is primarily a preliminary development plan. You'll have record plats There is a need for an infrastructure plan as well. And then we'll need a final development plan for the townhouses We think those are important items And that's the basis for that revision We also Wanted to make sure that in 10 and 11 and you're revised if you look at those that we have the identify the tree preservation area and new landscaping and 11 and that's along Sir Barton Way and 11 states landscaping plantings to be identified along the Winchester Road right-of-way and that Is an important aspect of their waiver request as well Again, we're talking about areas through here and you can see with the back of those lots Oriented that landscaping is very important here And I think the applicant recognizes that as well and they have made some representations to us that they're going to have more than adequate landscaping in this area in Your waiver report as you can see they're talking about An innovative design and one of the basis and the primary basis for innovative design and removing this sidewalk Is an increase in? Green space in this area that is also contingent upon their proposal to heavily landscape this area so in your Waiver report you'll see that that's one of the aspects of our approval Therefore again staff is recommending approval of the requested waiver And that is provided the landscaping installed adjacent to the u.s. 60 right-of-way is Done because therefore that will help meet the innovative criteria We've also made a finding that granting this waiver will not negatively impact pedestrian safety And we think that's accurate. There's no again No residential units along that northern portion of the street And you can see that we're also recommending approval subject to two conditions one that they angle that sidewalk connection to the intersection and To that they construct the sidewalk that we've discussed as part of the overall regional Pedestrian linkage if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you. Mr Martin any any questions for Tom? Mr. Holmes? The proposed sidewalk on the other side is that proposed in the other section eventually, I guess they'll connect that When you say other side You mean it would be to the west looking at the larger plan. Oh, okay I'm assuming that's along Winchester Road there. You have that connection. Yeah. Yes. This is the area of their plan This is where we're requesting the sidewalk. Yes, sir We would hope that eventually it would connect with an overall system that would include sidewalks along the arterial Now this area has already been developed and that would require if we did put them in this section of arterial of course a public involvement Thank you any other questions for mr. Martin Thank you, sir, yes, sir Oh Rory Kaley with EA partners I'm trying to digest All of this new information. I just got Let's see conditions on the revised sheet pink conditions one through seven Look fine. I've got some questions as far as the Other items here Number eight when they want us to remove all references to the final development plan Does that mean the townhouses as shown are not to be a part of this? I mean typically the townhouses are a final development plan would we have to pull those off and I understand Mr. Chairman, I think those could be left on if the plan were converted to a preliminary development plan Either their removal and it being just a preliminary subdivision plan would be fine with the staff Or if the status were changed to a preliminary development plan, they could stay on the plan from the staff perspective Okay, thank you Okay, well I Have the certifications on there and I think I've got the title block reading final development plan So if I already done what I need to do I'm still at a loss. The plan is filed as a preliminary subdivision plan. It was not filed as a development plan So the staff is willing to have this amended to be a preliminary development plan, but not a final development plan It was not filed as a final development plan understood I don't get it 10 and 11 is that just the Listing of a buffer area or am I going to be required to actually show screening on the drawing? We Would like for the applicant to identify these areas particularly since they're offering additional landscaping And so we want that identified so it's clear what? We expect to have there and then it can be enforced appropriately by By building inspection with the landscape plan. So we want that identified clearly and denoted along those frontages That's yeah, but again, I would add that they're offering additional Landscaping so we want that identified noted that additional and that is our understanding from the presentation that there would be additional landscaping All right, what the understanding would be the buffer area well in subdivision committee we talked about Along sir Barton we would be putting in Plank fence and some evergreen shrubs. There's a 20-foot building line It would also be the buffer area very similar to what has been done in Beaumont Along the main road as you go out towards man of war 12 is fine along with 13 and the discussion of the sidewalk along all of Winchester Road I think we'd like to withdraw the waiver request We've always said that we were willing to talk with staff about a System along Winchester Road, but we felt that we shouldn't be the only ones involved in the discussion if this is to link Our residential to the rest of Tuscany and Hamburg we're going to do that with our internal street systems if we're doing this to get patch and Wilkes which is on the other side of Winchester Road will have crossings for them To intersections where they can cross and use the sidewalk pattern But if we're going to do something wholesale for Winchester Road we really think that the three or four owners on our side plus the Three or four owners on their side Winchester Road should be involved and we should have a overall regional plan Something that we know is going to go in there, and it's not just all going to be put on this developer So we would like to withdraw our waiver will build the street similar to Per the ordinance sidewalks on both sides utility strips. We'll still have a screening area on Long the cul-de-sac along Winchester Road. That's something we want to do And I'm still at a loss as to what to do with number eight It was filed as a preliminary subvision plan a year ago Through the changes we brought it back We've been showing townhouses now for two or three months of discussion We put on the certifications we did I thought everything that was required to be a Final development plan simply because a year ago. It didn't say found development plan was submitted. I don't know Why that would pull this off now? I don't understand why I'd have to come back and file another plan Showing you what I've already been showing you for the last two to three months So I guess I would like to see acceptance of items 1 through 7 10 and 11 or 5 and 12 we understand I'd like to Omit 8 and let it be a final development plan as we've been reviewing it. I would like to have 13 omitted we'll just build the regular street not worry about all this Regional sidewalk along Winchester Road and And Number 9 since we've discussed that there was no turn lane required off Winchester Road. I think that should be omitted as well And I'll let staff answer some of those questions Well first of all I would just address number eight as mr. Sally stated this was not filed originally as a Final development plan nor do the revisions as we have them come in a constitute a final development plan We think again make it a preliminary development plan as well They can come back with a final for the townhouse area, and I believe we would be very comfortable with that As for number nine it was not that the turning lane is not necessary. It's that the right-of-way is adequate to Have a turn lane constructed. We don't need Any additional right-of-way? That's that's actually the issue that's been resolved the need for the turn lane still remains, and that is why We still have nine on your agenda And again if they wish to withdraw the waiver then that's their prerogative Thank You mr. Martin, mr. Kaley It was my understanding that requirements to arterials couldn't be Forced upon developers, I know there's a turn lane on Winchester Road on to Sir Barton I know when we talked about this in subdivision. They didn't want a second turn lane So I'm I'm still at a loss as to why this is here And if we leave this here, do I have to have state sign off that I do or do not need it to get certified I Think the recommendation Speaks to that and that he will need the approval of the Kentucky State Department of Transportation on any improvements that are needed and if they say no turn lane is needed then that's The improvement that's not needed, but any others again, that's their Jurisdiction and that's why we put it on here out of respect for that Okay, Thank You mr. Martin You have anything else to add mr. Kaley no, I think it's up to you guys now, okay, thank you Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make any comments this time I Think we've heard from both petitioner as well as from staff I think petitioner wanted to withdraw the The waiver that we have before us which would therefore Delete number condition number 13. I think you've heard the petitioners Comments with regards to condition 8 and 9 I believe mr. Kaley said condition 10 11 and 12 were acceptable, so At this time if mr. Kaley or mr. Martin you guys have anything additional you want to add Okay, we'll close this portion of the hearing and turn it over the Commission Mr. Chairman, yes, sir. I'm a little confused about the turning lane You want more room on there or what do you want? You you don't want it to the state might want it actually What we was what has been determined. Mr. Cravens is that no additional right-of-way is necessary in order to accomplish That improvement so should that improvement be required the room is there and so therefore the state can go ahead and Require it and it can be done and they can approve it, but we just there's no no additional right-of-way is required And again, that's the statement is to any improvements or to their their requirements and their approval Well, they already looked at it, well if they say there's no turn like necessary then Confusing this putting the number nine on there. It's standard that we always Put these things on there for particularly on arterials and turn lanes and developments, but it is the state's And has always been the state's jurisdiction, right? So you understand that? Okay Thank You, Mr. Martin, Mr. Payne you had something? Yeah, Mr. Martin now that they've withdrawn the the waiver request Do you still want the sidewalk that's going to be constructed on the Winchester's of that street to angle out to the corner? It is no longer necessary. That was part of their waiver request They will just be required to build a sidewalk all the way around the street and it will stay internal then it would stay internally Yes, sir Thank You are there any additional questions This is great, I mean, I mean Roy seems confused about Some of this so not this number eight. I mean, how was the plan filed? It was filed? As a preliminary subdivision plan originally, so why do you think it's a final development plan? When we resubmitted it a couple of months ago we had gone from Strictly a duplex is the first time around to duplexes and townhomes. You know, we've been going forward about it. There was Discussions about the townhouses about the access easement that they would need whether or not we're showing lot lines on the townhouses So I mean it's been You know, I've got final development plan on the title I put certifications on there and this is the first time I heard that it's not a final development plan But you never found it as a final you just think it Yeah with the vault into a final Yeah with three with the discussions of the changes ass and with the recent middle it be it became single or the duplexes and the townhomes Just part of the changes of you know addressing all the needs Thank you Any Other questions It's our motion So basically if this is changed to a preliminary plan He basically just needs to resubmit this plan for final development status with showing more detail on the townhouses staffs expect Expectation would be that the final development plan that would come in would be only for the townhouse area Mm-hmm So the other part is a final The party mr. Cayley has it in the title that this is a final development plan The staff is asking that that either be removed or changed to a preliminary development, right? But you then you threw the townhouses in there they are they not is that something new or That was not on the original submission Okay, is there a motion this time Okay Mr.. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion I'd like to move for approval of plan 2007 dash 52 P With the first 12 conditions is noted omitting number 13 because of the withdrawal of the waiver request Okay, we have a motion in a second to approve With withdrawal of the waiver and the first 12 conditions all those in favor say aye Opposed say no Motion carries. Thank you You Mr. Salih, mr. Chairman. Thank you. The next item appears on page 2 of your agenda. This is plan 2007 dash 201 F NDC property unit 1 a lot 16 Wellington amended This is a proposed final subdivision plan for property located at 249 Ruscio way Like to orient you briefly to the location the subject property using the development plan that is approved for the Wellington development. It shows a much larger area than just the plat that's before you. New Circle Road intersects Winchester, Nicholasville Road immediately to the east of this location. Winchester Road, Nicholasville Road, US 27 here in Fayette County is just to the east of this location. It parallels a major rail line, the Norfolk Southern Railroad, which has an overpass on the New Circle Road as well as West Reynolds Road, a local collector street that does intersect Nicholasville Road, extends all the way to Clay's Mill Road, which is immediately west of this location. It takes me a while. The subject property is on Ruscio Way, a loop street that intersects West Reynolds Road, and it is very near the railroad overpass to New Circle Road at this location. The subject property is zone B3, and it is subject to conditional zoning restrictions. I do have two photographs of the subject property I'd also like to show you at this time. This is looking from the south at the subject property. In the lower left of the photo, you see Ruscio Way, and the subject property is served with two access points. There is currently a hotel that's constructed on the property. There is a smaller building in the front that has their office and ancillary uses, and in addition a swimming pool is located centrally on the property. Next photograph is looking from the opposite direction. It's looking from the north, and if we can zoom out just a little bit, you can see New Circle Road in the frontage, and the fact that the property is only approximately 50 to 55 percent developed property is here. There is vacant land immediately to the east of this location, and a large building in an industrial zone immediately to the west of the subject property. Thank you. The plat that is before you proposes to subdivide the property into a front lot that would correspond to the current improvements on the property and a rear lot, and is shown by lot 16A and lot 16B. There is proposed an access easement, which roughly corresponds to the drive aisle that you did see in the photograph, that would serve the rear or vacant lot from Ruscio Way. That access easement currently exists on the property, so the proposal is to take the one lot and subdivide it into two. This property is subject to a final development plan that's been approved. The staff has that for your review today as well. It shows that the property is approved for a two-phased development. In essence, phase one has been constructed, the building that you saw, the multi-story building, the ancillary building toward the front with canopy, swimming pool, the associated access roadway that we saw, and the off-street parking surrounding the hotel use. It is approved for a phase two construction, which would be a U-shaped hotel building with off-street parking that would surround that building between the vacant property we saw in the photo and the industrial building we saw immediately to the west. Phase two does go all the way to New Circle Road. This is a final development plan that was certified in 2002 for the subject property. I've handed out to you excerpts from the land subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance for your review. In reviewing the subdivision, there is a section of the subdivision regulations that the staff is most concerned about with this proposed subdivision that's before you this afternoon. I should say this is an item that has been on several of your agendas and has been postponed a number of months. That is Article 1-13 of the subdivision regulations, which says that subdivision plans are required to comply with applicable zoning regulations or other urban county government ordinances. I mentioned early on in my presentation that this property is zone B-3, and it is subject to conditional zoning restrictions. Those restrictions appear on the preliminary development plan for the overall Wellington development, and the staff has enlarged those for your review this afternoon. There are four areas of this entire development that are subject to conditional zoning restrictions. One is a P-1 area a little farther to the west that's often been associated with the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. That church has since developed in what I would call a first phase of development. That property is zone P-1, but there are restrictions on the uses that are allowed for that property. In addition, the R-3 area that is closest to Clays Mill Road and bounded by Wellington Way and by Post Road, which has since been renamed, there is a density restriction in the R-3 zone on that portion of the property. In addition, the light industrial zone that is immediately to the west of the subject property that has frontage along Ruscio Way, along New Circle Road, and along both sides of Sporting Court, is also governed by conditional zoning that prohibits a number of different uses that are otherwise allowed in the I-1 zone. Looking at the subject property at zone B-3, and under the conditional zoning in effect for the entire area, this B-3 area, also known as parcel F, is restricted to a hotel or motel and permitted accessory uses. And that is the crux of the subdivision issue that's before you this afternoon. The staff believes that should the property subdivide, that the use of this property would exceed a hotel or motel use. So we do not believe that this subdivision would purport to the conditional zoning restriction that's in place on the property, which calls for only a hotel or motel. We've also included a section of the zoning ordinance for your review that talks about conditional zoning. And, of course, conditional zoning is authorized by state law. It's also recognized in our zoning ordinance. And as you know from the many zoning hearings that you have, conditional zoning is something that we talk about from time to time on different developments. But we've included that section of the ordinance for your review this afternoon. The staff's concern, again, is that this lot, if subdivided, would allow separate ownership, separate operation, separate signage, and a second hotel or motel use at this location that would be independent of the first. So the staff does not believe that this subdivision meets the requirements of Article 1-13 of your subdivision regulations. That led us, in October of last year, to recommend disapproval of this subdivision to the subdivision committee. The subdivision committee, when they reviewed this plat in October of last year, made a similar recommendation of disapproval to the commission. The supporting findings for that recommendation are threefold. They're listed on your agenda. First, there is a typo on number one. The agenda says Article 1-11. That should be Article 1-13 of the land subdivision regulations requires that plans filed comply with applicable zoning ordinances and other urban county government ordinances. Secondly, Article 6-7 of the ordinance does allow restrictions on the use of property in the granting of the zone map amendment. And finally, the subject property is restricted in use to a hotel or motel, and this subdivision would violate the current restriction. At this point, I'll be glad to answer any questions you have about the staff recommendation or about any of the information that I presented to you this afternoon on this proposed subdivision of one lot into two. Thank you, Mr. Sully. I did have one question. On the blue area that had zoning restrictions, what were those? I know you talked about density for the residential and property uses. You mentioned it, but I think I fell asleep there for a moment. No, sir. I did not mention the individual restrictions on the P1 area. I told you that it is restricted. I didn't tell you what the restrictions are. The P1 area is restricted to only nine different types of uses. I'm just going to cover most of these. Churches, Sunday schools, community centers, athletic clubs, schools for academic instruction, technical or trade schools, kindergarten, nursery schools, swimming pools, tennis courts, soccer field, and other similar non-commercial recreational uses as an accessory use. Parking areas and structures as accessory or conditional uses, and satellite dishes as accessory uses. Okay. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Any other questions for Mr. Sali? Ms. Godfrey? I have one. Basically, a second hotel has already been approved, that front lot, to build a second hotel type structure on it as is. I would say that the staff position is that the hotel at this location is allowed to construct a second building. Okay. We have hotels and motels in our community that have more than one building, and that's why the staff recommended approval of the development plan that is currently certified. Our fear is that if the property is subdivided, that that restriction would no longer be enforced. Okay. I understand. Thank you, Ms. Godfrey. Any other questions for Mr. Sali? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Ashley Ward. I'm an attorney at Stites and Harbison, and myself, along with my partner, Steve Rochelle, it's our pleasure today to represent the landowner in this matter, Wellington E., who is the applicant simply seeking the request that this Commission grant the subdivision of the property, as Mr. Sali has indicated, so as to make it into two actual separate parcels. We'll look at the zoning ordinance here in a second, but really what we're all debating here today is whether the zoning ordinance, and we don't deny that there is limitation or a conditional use to how we can use this, our area, our land. There is a conditional use. It says it's for hotel or motel use. The difference we have, and apparently the argument we have here today, is whether the zoning says that there can only be one hotel, that is, it is limited to one hotel, one entity that owns a hotel that may have two buildings, or, in fact, is it only a limitation on the type of use of B3 that can be utilized for that particular parcel? That is, it can't be a restaurant, it can't be a bank, it can't be a daycare, it can't be any of the other numerous things under B3, it can only be for a hotel or motel use. And certainly with the subdivision of the property, it's not going to change in any way the zoning that will apply to this parcel of property. It will still be subject to the conditional zoning that's been approved of a hotel-motel use, but not that there can only be one hotel. And so, I know everybody thinks that lawyers like to sit around and argue about what the definition of is, is, well, today we're here to discuss in a little detail what is really intended and meant by the zoning that the staff has interpreted to mean it can only allow one hotel. Now, Mr. Salih has gotten us off to a good start, if I could, and put up the murals for you and Andrew. My first exhibit, and Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have a number of exhibits, both plats and some documents, so whatever your pleasure may be, I can certainly talk about them, and then before we're done, make sure that they're all admitted here into the record today, however you want to do that. The first exhibit is our Exhibit 1, which is no different than what Mr. Salih showed you here. And it is this, is that my client has already had approved, as a final development plan, the ability to build two buildings in two phases. And in fact, as you have seen, we've already built the first building. This is a Homewood Suites Hotel that is in operation out there and helps service a lot of folks that come to this part of town to go to all those basketball tournaments and soccer tournaments that we have out there in the area. But I think it's significant that we all understand that already, as we stand here today, the staff in this commission has approved a second building out there, in the second building, to be a hotel. So if the concern is, is that by simply subdividing this property, as we're requesting, by simply subdividing it, you are going to increase an impact or a use on this property that folks may not want, well we already know that we are approved to start building four stories, 120 rooms. That's bigger than the 91 we've already got. So even without a subdivision, certainly we are authorized to build a hotel that, whatever the issues are about traffic, water runoff, all of the issues that you might be concerned about as far as usage, that has already been approved. And that could be done by our owner to move forward in phase two. However, what he is seeking to do today with the subdivision plat is simply request, and this is a copy of the plat that we have tendered, is to take our parcel, which is parcel F right here, and simply subdivide it into a parcel with the front one being where the existing hotel is, and the second one being subdivided. That second one you saw on the aerial photograph, and certainly I have one as Exhibit 2A, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I've got enough to kind of pass around, if that's possible. Thank you. And what I'm passing around, ladies and gentlemen, is Exhibit 2A, this being Exhibit 2, being our actual proposed subdivision plat, is a photograph to show the aerial overlay of this and that the grassy green area would be subdivided so as to be a separate parcel of land that once again would still be subject to a hotel or motel use. We are not here asking for a change in the zoning. We are not here asking you all to somehow change the conditional use of how this property will be used, but instead we're simply asking to subdivide the land so that in fact, yes, there could be ultimately two separate operating hotels there. Once again, the use will not be any different, the hotel will not be any bigger than what has already been approved in the final subdivision plan of a four story building, but that certainly our client seeks the ability to subdivide the land so that he could potentially finance it, sell it, develop it as a hotel, but the idea being there would be a separate operating hotel. As you can see on the aerial photograph, there is already a roadway coming off of Rucio Way that provides an access easement to that parcel. We're already approved to do the actual building. The question becomes then, does the zoning, which we agree we have to abide by, does the zoning prohibit this board from allowing the subdivision of the property? Once again, the subdivision of property is really a ministerial act that this board conducts. That is, if it complies with the zoning, it's subdivided and it really is more of a ministerial action. My next exhibit would be Exhibit 3, which is the ordinance itself, which was enacted back in 1997, and for our Track F, the track in question and the concern I think the staff has that it says that Track F shall be restricted so as to limit uses to a hotel or motel and permitted accessory uses as set forth in the ordinance. Limited to uses to a hotel or motel. It doesn't say it is limited to one hotel. It doesn't say it's limited to one operator of a hotel. It says it is limited in its uses, that's right, to what kind of use? To that of a hotel or a motel use. Now once again, that's the language of our actual ordinance itself, 143-97. Limited to uses as set forth as a hotel or motel. Now the staff interprets a hotel or motel meaning it can only be one operator, it can never be more than one hotel. And obviously that's what we take issue with, because when you do conditional zoning, and it's a B-3, and we'll look here in a second, there's all sorts of uses in B-3, and what this ordinance said, you're not going to be allowed to use all those other uses, but you can use a hotel or motel use. And it was not an effort to limit the number, but instead the use. My next Exhibit 4, Mr. Chairman, would be the actual agreed order, agreed judgment and order of dismissal. Maybe the reason this is so complicated is because there were a lot of lawyers involved. But this property, if you recall, was the old Reynolds Tobacco property on Reynolds Road and was owned by an outfit called the National Development Council. And as they engaged in an effort to create this property for use in the community, there was litigation in the Fayette Circuit Court from which our zoning ordinance arose from. That is, everything that Bill has talked about here, and all the various conditional zoning uses for all of the property, imagine here's Myers sits here, and here's KBA and Soccer Blast and Champs. All of this zoning that's all in the fine print here actually arose from a lawsuit in the Fayette Circuit Court. And that lawsuit and agreed judgment by National Development Council, the Neighborhood Association, by the Council, by the Planning Commission, created this zoning back in 1997. And it once again specifically talked about Track F, where the hotel is, and the lawsuit said, this zoning shall be subject to a conditional zoning restriction which limits uses to a hotel or motel and permitted accessory uses. Limits uses to a motel or hotel, a hotel or motel. It's from that agreed order down in the Fayette Circuit Court that the Council then adopted their ordinance, which is Exhibits 3 and 4. There was then a follow-up agreed judgment that really did not affect this. There were then some covenants and restrictions placed on the property, on the land, but once again all those restrictions said was Section F has to be used for a hotel motel use, and you can't come back and try to rezone it for some other B3 use. You can't come back and try to rezone it B1 or B6. It can only and has to stay with the title as a hotel or motel use, and those covenants would be our Exhibit 6. Now I think Mr. Salih has pointed out correctly that a subdivision has to be in conformity with the zoning requirements and the zoning law. Well, Exhibit 7 that I would tender tells us a couple of things, which is a couple of chapters from our zoning ordinance. Significantly, we have definitions. There's all sorts of definitions, but this is an important one. This is how we define our own zoning rules. Words in the singular number include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. Now without trying to get too detailed, what that tells us is that when we interpret our own zoning ordinances, if it says a word in the singular, it can be plural, and if it says plural, it can mean singular. Well, we would submit to you all that when in this order, in this ordinance, it said is limited to a hotel or motel use, it doesn't mean one singular, one hotel. It limits the kind of use it can be. It can't be a dog kennel, it can't be a restaurant, it can't be a daycare center. It's got to be a hotel or a motel, and that's all we're asking the ability to do. Significantly, when you look at Article 820, highway services, B3 zone, there are 26 different things that are allowed in a B3 zone, and our client's not allowed to do 25 of those because under the agreed order, under the ordinance, we can't have automobile service station, a cocktail lounge, a car wash, a laundromat, which is in singular, and interestingly, in our own ordinance, it says, in the B3 hotel, it says motel or hotel. Doesn't say motels plural, doesn't say hotels plural, it says motel or hotel. Now if one were to interpret that literally, as I think the staff is doing, that means B3 at the corner of Winchester Road and I-75, where there's about six hotels and motels, if you were to look at B3 and it says hotel, motel, that means there could only be one out there in a B3 zone, and I would submit to you that this is a distinction without a difference that the staff is making as it relates to what the word a hotel or motel use means. So that would be Exhibit 7, which takes our own definitions and our own ordinance and tells us what hotel and motel means. Now knowing that the issue before us today was going to be what did everybody mean in this lawsuit back in 97, when the parties, including the city and NDC, negotiated a hotel or motel, I have for this body today an affidavit from Mary Jo Ruscio. Mary Jo Ruscio was the project manager for NDC back in 1997, the folks who owned all the old Reynolds tobacco property. Mary Jo Ruscio was actively involved in this litigation. She was actively involved in how we were going to divide and ultimately engage in the zoning of this property. An Exhibit 8 from Ms. Ruscio that will be submitted to you all tells you that she was actively involved in these negotiations, that she is familiar with the negotiating that led to this agreed order that was entered by Judge Payne that has the language which limits uses to a hotel and motel. Ms. Ruscio says it is her personal knowledge and recollection that the conditional zoning restriction on that property was limited to uses of a motel and hotel, was intended and meant to be a limitation on the type of use, a limitation on the type of use, that being a hotel or motel use, but not a limitation on the number of lots or a limitation on the number of hotels that could be on Section F. She goes on to state that it was discussed, understood, and agreed that the zoning use for Track F was limited to hotel or motel use to the exclusion of all the other uses in B-3, the other 26 uses that may have been allowed, but there was no limitation or intention that only one hotel could be operated or one hotel could be built on that property. So if you want to go back in time 10 years and see from people who were involved, we now have a sworn affidavit for Ms. Ruscio. Ironically, for whom the street that we're all talking about was named after, who tells us that in the negotiations of this whole issue that created all of this zoning, sure, they wanted to limit it to a certain kind of use, hotel, motel, but not the number of hotels or motels, or that it could only be one. Finally, let me get organized. The other point we wanted to try to make gets into the issue of how this particular subdivision application is being evaluated compared to all the others. I say all the others, understand that over time, since 1987, folks have come to this body seeking to subdivide these various parcels. Ours is five acres alone, but understand that where the Myers is and where KBA and everybody is located, parties have come to this board seeking subdivisions, just like we are today, a simple subdivision under the existing zoning. And what we asked Mr. Salih to do, and I got to him in advance, as Exhibits 9 through 16, and we'll talk about them here in just a second, I gave to Mr. Salih every subdivision plaque that's come before this board, people who arose all out of the same ordinance, folks who came all out of the same court order down at the courthouse and said, you know, I'm in Section B here, I'd like to subdivide so I could build a Culver's restaurant, or I want to subdivide and put in a Simpkins Optical. And what we will see is that there have been no less than 32 subdivisions of all of these parcels in B and C and A and D, and everybody else that's come before this board seeking subdivisions simply to subdivide their property in conformity with the zoning that's laid over top of them, this board has allowed for those subdivisions. And Mr. Salih has been good enough to certify all of those, and we will admit those into the record, but if I could grab them here real quick and just kind of walk through them for you. It may be a bit hard to see, but if you assume Section B, here's the Myers, well, this exhibit here reflects that it was subdivided for two parcels right in front of it. This was done, this is our Exhibit 10, there were two parcels there. We have another time at Exhibit 11, it is subdivided another time, and the exhibits that we have, thank you ma'am, and it's even subdivided again on Exhibit 11. And the exhibits that we have then for simply the area in front of Myers alone has been subdivided four times. When you come over here to the professional services, P1, I have before us Plats No. 12, it was divided six times, there alone in one plat is six subdivisions of P1. Now once again, they're all still P1, these were all still B1, nobody sought to change the zoning, but there were six subdivisions approved. Exhibit 13 shows six more subdivisions. This Property 4 here, it was divided six more times, so that's 12 right there. When you come to the other side of P1, which is over here just down from our property, Exhibit 14 reflects it being subdivided six times. And then finally, ladies and gentlemen, when you get to the light industrial area up here, Exhibits 15 and 16, 15 shows it being subdivided nine times, all within I-1, and then finally Exhibit 16 shows it being subdivided once more. Once more. 32 subdivision plats, which is all ours is, 32 subdivision plats have come before this board arising out of the same agreed judgment, arising out of the same ordinance, and they have all been approved. As Mr. Salih said, some of them in light industrial have conditional zoning, they're just not I-1, there are limitations, and they have to live within those limitations. We're looking to live within our limitations. It's still going to be a hotel, it's still covered by hotel or motel use, but all we are asking to do is to approve a subdivision plan that simply subdivides these parcels so that in essence two separate operating hotels can be conducted and built there, but a use that's consistent with the zoning regulation, a use that is consistent with our final development plan that already says we can put 120 more rooms over here. So Mr. Chairman, I know I've got a pile of paper going, but I do have all of these available for Madam Clerk. I just want to make sure that our record is clear that we have moved to introduce Exhibits 1 through 16, of which I have a copy for the clerk, and would certainly welcome any questions that anyone may have. And I have extra copies of the judgment or the ordinance if anybody wanted to see those. I don't know if I've got enough for everyone, but I don't want to hide it from anybody. I take it staff has one for the record, is that correct, you've entered those? We do not have all of them, but we have most of them. Most of them, okay. Let me see. I'm getting for Mrs. Clerk, I'm going to get her our original documents here. Once again, Exhibit 1 was our preliminary plan that's been approved. Exhibit 2 is the pending subdivision plan. Exhibit 3 is the Ordinance 143-97. Exhibit 4, the agreed judgment. Exhibit 5 is the amended agreed judgment. Exhibit 6 are the covenants and restrictions. Exhibit 7 are the ordinance that has the definitional language in B3. Exhibit 8 is the affidavit of Ms. Ruscio. And the rest of the exhibits 9 through 16 are the ones that Mr. Salih was good enough to certify for us. Does that complete your presentation? With that, yes, Mr. Chairman, it completes my presentation and certainly would welcome any questions anyone may have. Okay, thank you very much. Can I get your last name again? Yes, sir. Ashley Ward, W-A-R-D. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Ward at this time? Commission members? Any questions? Ms. Cochran, do you have a question? I had a couple of things. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, I was thinking through. That's okay. I was going fast. But what types of things would you mind pointing out again that would constitute a social, economic or social change in the area that would support this? Well... I mean, what types of things? Sure. If the concern, if the question is directed to are there social or economic changes that would require, to help support a zone change, but we're not really here on a zone change as I understand it. Once again, and that's fine, sure. As far as the change, I will say this. I think there's clearly a need. I think that the marketplace desires there to be a hotel there. Obviously, we've kept fairly busy at the Homewood Suites. Obviously, when folks 10 years ago thought it was appropriate to build a hotel there, hotels, it was approved. When we had our plan approved, there was already plans to let us build 120 more rooms. So if the economic engine indicator is, is there a marketplace for more hotel rooms in that part of town, I suspect there is. And whether we subdivide it or not, we can build 120 more rooms. So my client believes there is economic reason to have more hotel rooms there, that that will be desirous for him and the community. Then the question becomes, should he have the opportunity to simply subdivide that property and perhaps have a second standalone operating hotel? And once again, as long as we're within the proper zone, it's like all the folks who decided that instead of letting Myers sit there all by itself, it sure would be nice to maybe have a credit union and have an ice cream store and have an optical store right there. Once again, those were all within the appropriate zone. They didn't have to seek a zone change. They couldn't have had something else there that didn't comply with the zone, but they are certainly entitled to subdivide the property to be, to have uses in conformity with the zoning as it exists. And that's been done 32 times already, but we think there would be an economic benefit and purpose and reason to build another building there at some point and have it be a standalone hotel. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Sure. Any other questions for Mr. Ward at this time? Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh-huh. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this particular application? Okay. Sir. Staff, do you have any rebuttal at this time? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have two rebuttal points that I think are very germane to your consideration of the subdivision plan this afternoon. The first is the question Mr. Ward posed as to whether the conditional zoning restriction for a hotel or motel use is the same as one hotel or motel use. And to answer that question, we need to look closely at what Article 1-11 of the Zoning Ordinance states. It states that when not inconsistent with the context, words in the present tense include the future. Words in the singular number include the plural. Words in the plural number include the singular. How that sentence begins is most important in this case as to whether or not a hotel or motel use is the same as one hotel or motel use. Secondly, the other point that I do need to rebut is how this particular subdivision plan has been reviewed in comparison to all the others in the Wellington area. And I can tell you today from the staff perspective, there has been no plan, development plan or subdivision plan approved in Wellington that is contrary to the conditional zoning restrictions that have been in effect on this property for over 10 years. In fact, Parcel F, as we've described it, is the only area in Wellington restricted to a use. The other restrictions, as I mentioned, are density, a listing of prohibited uses, a listing of allowable uses, but no other area in this entire 400 plus acres is restricted to a use under the conditional zoning. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Salih. I think there's a question maybe. Ms. Godfrey, you have a question? I'm sorry. I'm just struggling here. This property is restricted to a use. We have a request to subdivide this property that will not change that use. The development plan is in effect, as we've described it to you. If I could show you how a hotel or motel is defined, perhaps that would help. A hotel is a building or group of buildings containing individual sleeping or living units designed for the temporary occupancy of guests. A motel is similarly defined, a building or group of buildings. Bill, how is this different from a residential lot, dividing a residential lot and building two houses instead of the one that was on that lot? Most residential lots are single family or duplex types of units. The zoning ordinance restricts those uses to either one or, in the case of the duplex, two units per lot. In this case, the subdivision almost always is before the individual construction of the units. That's what's a little bit different in the case that's before you today, although the building has not been constructed, it's approved on the development plan for construction. I have one question for Mr. Salley. If the applicant chose to add another building onto that lot, another hotel, would he be allowed to do that without subdividing it? The building is approved on the development plan for construction, so presumably the owner of the property could proceed to the Division of Building Inspection and inquire about obtaining building permits for that building. Now, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the development plan that has two approved buildings, right? On one lot? It is. I believe this and this are the same plan. Same plan. Okay. What was the date of that particular, I'm just curious, the date of that development plan that's been certified? I believe Mr. Ward's development plan is an older version. That development plan has a certification date of 2000. Okay. This development plan has a certification date of 2002. Okay. And to my knowledge, this plan has not been amended since that time. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Owens, you had a question? So I guess I'm a little confused then. They could put another, with their development plan the way it is, they could add the two buildings. They are approved for one additional building on the property, yes. They could add one additional building. Yes. But to subdivide it and have basically the same development plan, they would not be permitted to do that? The development plan would remain in effect whether the subdivision is approved or denied today. The development plan remains in effect regardless of your action today. Oh, okay. The question I'd like to ask, Bill, is if we, and maybe you just answered it and I didn't hear you, but if we subdivide this property today into two lots, now will they have to reappear, if they decide to build another hotel, another brand, will they have to come back with a new subdivision plan to meet all the regulations that we have? No, sir. I believe if you approve the subdivision plan today, I'm not sure of any instance short of the applicant's decision that would bring a plan back to the Planning Commission. Bill, without this subdivision, they can build this building, they already have a development plan, and they could actually lease that property to somebody else or something. A lease? I mean, that would be between the owner and what he wanted to do with his property, but still, they could basically build a separate hotel that would have a separate sign, a separate name, and a separate operation today. Is that correct? Certainly, the other building would probably be eligible for signage. The signage would probably match the signage on the existing hotel. As to whether or not it could be leased, ordinarily a lease is required to be based upon a subdivision plat, so I'm not sure that they could do that. That's my understanding. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Any other questions for Mr. Salih? Thank you for your rebuttal. Mr. Ward, you have rebuttal? Not any real rebuttal. Just so the record's clear, Mr. Salih was right. I think my plat, even though I don't think there's any substantive changes, was about two years prior to yours. So if I could amend my Exhibit 2 to be inclusive of the one that Mr. Salih has, just so there's no problem, to make sure we've got the final plat in front of us, and we can work that out amongst ourselves. But if I could have that substituted as Exhibit 2, that's all I really have. Duly noted. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Mr. Graves, you have a question? If it's subdivided, is there going to be two different owners? Certainly, that's a possibility. I mean, I think, obviously, if it's subdivided, it creates opportunities for financing. It creates opportunities to sell it, to lease it, and there could ultimately be a separate owner, or our client could own it and put up a Holiday Inn Express or a Super 8 or something and deal with another chain. But it gives him opportunities, knowing that it is subdivided, to then see what's going to happen with the second parcel. It'll be a hotel. But I don't know what our future plans would ultimately be. But it could be the same owner. Oh, it certainly could be the same owner. That's certainly right. And we just give him a chance to... It just gives you more options on financing. It really does. It sure does. To have two hotels instead of one great big hotel. Same number of rooms. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Thank you, Mr. Ward. I have a question for our legal people. Okay. Can I just close this portion of the public hearing, then we'll... Any questions you have, I guess we'll go forward. So, go ahead. My question is, there's no zone change being requested. That's correct. They're asking for subdivision of this lot. Would that require the same KRS standards for findings? No, it would not. It doesn't require the... There's no issue about being in agreement with the plan. The issue here is, as was pointed out by Mr. Salih, there's a requirement that when a subdivision is requested, that it comply with the zoning of the property that's being subdivided. The argument boils down to what does a hotel or motel mean? And that language comes from the judgment that's been introduced, was incorporated in the ordinance that the council passed to rezone the property, and then was also, and this has also been introduced in a set of restrictive covenants that was required as part of the judgment. All three of those documents use that same phrase. In fact, the restrictive covenants say a... I think they phrase it slightly differently to just make it even more clear on that reading that apparently it was one hotel. But the arguments that you've heard, you'll have to... You know, this is not going to be a lawyer being able to tell you how to interpret it. You're going to have to interpret it based on the arguments that you've heard, both from the staff and from the applicant. But it doesn't require the same standard of findings in order to support it. By statute, at least. Now, in terms of what might cause a judge to agree with it, it might, you know, findings might be helpful. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Any other questions at this time? Any comments from commission? Mr. Payne, you have something? I just reinforced the reason I did not entertain going to law school. I understand, Bill, where you're coming from here. But I also understand that we're not changing the use. We're not changing the zoning, as Linda pointed out. I don't know if I'm smart enough to interpret what the definition of is is. So I'm just going to rely on common sense here. And I think we're splitting hairs here. There may be a fundamental point, Bill, that I'm missing, and I probably would miss it every time it was presented. But for the life of me, I just cannot see, if the use is the same, how we're going to do harm by allowing this to happen. And if some of my fellow commissioners could help me understand that, I certainly would be appreciative. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Mr. Mahan. Mr. Chairman, I'll try to help my fellow commissioners asking all this information. By making a motion, I move approval of subdivision plan 2007-201F, NDC property, Wellington, et cetera, for the following reasons. One, the approval of the subdivision plan meets the subdivision regulations and is consistent with the approved final development plan. Number two, the subdivision plan does not violate the zoning ordinance, as the use shall remain as a hotel or motel use. That's my motion. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. And we'll take a vote. All those in favor of the motion as read by Mr. Mahan, please say aye. aye all opposed say no motion carries thank you thank you yes we'll take a about a 10-minute break at this point I understand is on page 3 it's on page 3 item 2008 dash 28 F they got Lakeview Island unit 3 the landings we have now gotten some revised conditions so if you all would like to look at the blue sheet this will have your revised conditions on it the property is currently zoned R4 it's about 0.5 acre of what they're trying to subdivide off they're wanting to subdivide this portion of the property off of the whole area they currently have a tennis court sitting on that piece of property and they're wanting to remove that and put in some townhomes the committees had the subdivision committee and staff had recommended approval we have 13 conditions item 11 12 11 and 13 have been changed slightly and we have condition 12 which is provide Planning Commission grants a waiver of article 6-8 land subregs and Tom's going to talk about that do you all have any other questions it's already part of the road that ends into this property and so the concern was is we don't like to have just a street stopping at the edge of a property so we were wanting them to help us work on creating a building line to offset this and create that separate lot okay thank you Cheryl any questions sure yeah the waiver Tom's gonna he's gonna yes yes sir mr. chairman members of the Commission this plan as Cheryl pointed out to you is requests for a subdivision at the end of Lake Park Road where it does stub end at the property line for a current existing development an apartment complex in this area and as Cheryl explained they're requesting the subdivision of this lot to create seven additional units where the tennis court used to be you just recently saw a development plan on this property and approved it our subregs do require I'm sure as you all are well aware that a substrate be terminated in a cul-de-sac or some appropriate turnaround or it be continued well in this case Lake Park Road has existed since the early 70s when the property was developed it is a street with 50 feet of right-of-way it's got 26 feet of pavement 8 foot utility strip and a 4 foot sidewalk it's very standard in that regard put up a picture for you real quick thank you you can you can see from the picture there's the existing development Lake Park Road stubs into it the area above where it stubs in is the area in question where they would like to subdivide in the area of the tennis court and build and build the seven units again this is this area right at the end of Lake Park Road and you can see from the photograph that back in this direction there's a knuckle in reviewing this waiver request we did agree with the applicant that it would be an unnecessary hardship to require a termination with a cul-de-sac it would interfere with the current access to the property it could reduce the parking making it a non-conforming a war I should say a more non-conforming situation for the apartment complex it does now currently function well in terms of access it was reviewed in conjunction with solid waste and fire and again because it has a development plan controlling the property staff is comfortable with the waiver request and we have recommended approval of saying thank you Tom I guess there's been some question up here miss Godfrey had a question I think you're right this subdivision was listed for postponement originally due to questions on the lot frontage and how it was going to relate to like and along with an access easement for there was a period of time where there was no access easement the building lines originally proposed were at a very odd angle and not really adequate to the purpose they need to be shown like this and in this particular case one of the conditions that needs to be properly scaled on the planet is not and and that's why it's been postponed for such a length of time the development plan was also postponed for a while due to the parking situation you may recall and that was resolved and we were able to approve the plan but again the primary purposes for postponement at the time was how was access going to serve both properties and then the lot frontage and the lot frontage is measured at the building line so with the revision that we received on the 5th and we received on May the 5th we are now comfortable with the plan and it can meet the conditions Tom I have one other question the times that I've been up here we looked at waivers to street stubs and we look at cul-de-sacs or hammerheads is there a particular geometry I see them the map and I see the half arc is there a geometry that would be sort of tied to this there is a standard cross-section that they're required to construct that is part of our subdivision regulations okay have we decided on what that cross-section is have we decided there has been decided oh it's a standard it is and it is adopted in our subreg so it's not a modification of the stand oh no sir okay and norm and you should have had that staple to the back if you look at your goal sheet for the Tuscany oh okay we'll find staple to that waiver request a the page that has all the street cross-sections okay so it's not a modification oh no sir no sir it is they are not they're requesting not to build it at all right and and again I would add because of the development plan control fire and solid waste have reviewed this and they did sign off on the development plan and they're comfortable with their ability to provide service to this property thank you for clarification any other questions mr. Holmes you have a question I will again why the development plan is with us we don't have it up but if you look at the photograph and you see the layout of the apartment complex with the parking and the drive aisles they deemed that adequate for their purposes they will have to go into the parking lot which is how it is currently the the current situation is the same thank you mr. Martin thank you this year mr. chairman I'm Gary Roland Foster Roland and I'm in agreement with the conditions that were outlined by Tom Martin just like to point out similar to the last plan that you all looked at this is subject to an approved development plan we still intend to develop it in accordance with the approved plant with the plan that you all approved two months ago and basically we're just wanting to subdivide it for for financing reasons not going to have any effect on what is going to be at the site okay thank you mr. Roland any any questions for mr. Roland is there anyone in the audience want to speak to this okay saying none Tom you have any rebuttal okay we'll close the portion hearing and turn of the Commission for discussion comment motion chairman I move for approval a plan 2008-80 28 F subject to the conditions on our blue sheet are you also granting the waiver and I will grant the waiver yes sir okay we have a motion and a second to approve subject to the conditions on the blue sheet and granting the waiver of the land subdivision regulations and we have a second all those in favor of the motion say aye opposed say no motion carries thank you you mr. Martin mr. chairman members of the Commission the next item on your agenda is at the top of page 4 it is plan 2005-28 F guest property unit 5 C we are going to present these plans to you in unison they are unit 5 C the following item is guest property unit 5 D after that H on page 4 you'll see guest property unit 5e and on the top of page 5 the final plan up for reapproval which is guest property unit 5 F you also if you will look with your handouts you'll see a brown and piece of paper that does have on both front and back the conditions for reapproval including two additional conditions on these plans guest property probably needs little introduction to this body I will start out with the big picture you can see again here is the guest property here is unit 5 this is the area where we're seeking reapproval unit 4 you just recently had a discussion about a plat right in here here's unit 6 which is just recently approved by you all here is the street section system that was approved on unit 6 you can see the connection here to 5 here's the loop in that regard here is Jewett Creek connection that was a part of that discussion with unit 6 now these plans that you have before you today guest property unit 5 were originally approved in 2005 they were reapproved in February of 2007 now what you have before you are the complete units unit 5c 5d 5e 5f this is a greenway plat these plats are single-family outlined for you is section 2 of these properties section 1 these areas here they've been recorded these been released were approved by this body they have been recorded they chose not to record these sections so therefore they're back before you for reapproval so that they can proceed with those sections of the development and again go back to the big picture here's your green space if as it curls around here's your urban service boundary here is section 2 of 5c section 2 around the cul-de-sac you can see a 5d and again this the cul-de-sac of 5e again here it is here are the sections again see these this one little back section on the cul-de-sac D again little cul-de-sac with these lots here and then it's continue with the another cul-de-sac and these are just a few lots now in our review of these properties and in light of previous circumstances you can see on your revised condition that on 5e we've added a condition number 9 and on 5f we have added a condition as well the same condition it just happens to be number 13 on that plat and that is that they shall document either evidence of a section 4 for water quality permit and relief from the Corps of Engineers cease and desist order for this unit or sufficient evidence that this unit does not require a section 4 for water quality permit this is the same condition that has been placed on some previous guest plans the area in question now very obviously our greenway plant this will eventually be the city's property and part of our greenway in the expansion area this area is impacted here 5e in an area of section 1 it's already been recorded there's also a small impact area approximately in here and that is the reason we are requesting you to approve this with that additional condition even though this section 2 is here it is all part of that section and your previous approval and again there's a slight impact area here and then this area is impacted so staff is recommending re-approval of these plants subject to the conditions as you have on your handout thank you mr. Martin any any questions for mr. Martin at this time okay thank you sir mr. chairman members Commission Rory Kaylee of the EA partners we're in agreement with the staff's revised conditions and request approval to all four plans okay thank you mr. Kaylee any any questions mr. pin of course first of all I want to compliment on the staff on showing us the whole picture rather than this the subsections of it because but what I'd like for you to do is to show me where the stormwater runoff on those plants that we're reapproving where that goes can you do that everything I guess this works yes that's here's the wet system there's the wet waste system greenway whatever you want to call it and all that continues down here we've got another one coming through here you know basically you can see here in the yellow it's all the pods of development there where you get a break you get one of these green areas we collect it you know so most of it goes in the current detention pond that's there now yes I think everything is stopped here at the Charlesburg roadside okay eventually I mean we got stops all along the way but everything gets property from here up I believe it is okay all right thank you thank you mr. Kaylee any other questions for mr. Kaylee at this time okay thank you have anyone in the audience instructor thank you mr. chairman fellow members of Commission right now I have a few questions for mr. Kaylee today we have been in a correspondence with the Kentucky Division of Water and we have been informed that your 401 water quality certificate has run out on this property it needs to be recertified and we need to kind of an answer straight up yes or no because as of right now I'm waiting on an email from the Division of Water State of Kentucky the 401 permit water quality permit for ball homes has expired we have would like to ask killer is he aware of it because he's part of the engineering department is supposed to be keeping up with this type of certificates right now we're not for sure how long it's been run out we have been told it's been run out for a while you may have approved some developments in this area and if it is it's a direct violation of the Clean Water Act that which we're in the EPA consent decree about today I am waiting on email to back up this information I didn't find out till Monday morning that this has happened I have been in conference with them for the last four hours up until one o'clock today and I had to come down here and bring this to your attention and I feel that right now anything you do now would be putting a major issue back into the consent decree which will have to be cleaned up by the citizens of this city so I'm asking at this point either postpone it or check into it and find out if this is what I'm being told or informed about today is actually the fact and I thank you for your time thank you mr. Tucker staff do you have in any rebuttal at this time okay petitioner okay okay at this time we'll close this portion of the public I guess engineering you've been asked to come forward before we close it I guess I think one of the one commissioners have a question for you that's right thanks Hillary I think mr. Penn has a question for you I was just don't understand here help me explain what 401 is do you know what a 401 for 401 permit 401 water quality certification is is very similar to the it's a state version of very similar to the 404 Army Corps of Engineers permit it addresses water quality issues with impacts to streams and wetland areas would these four whatever it is here with these four need a 401 permit well for the for the unrecorded portions of these plats I don't believe so you know again the the 401 would would address construction activity in the areas of the jurisdiction construction activities and streams and wetland areas so in your opinion it wouldn't be germane to put the 401 on this number nine just like 404 is I don't think it would I don't think it would hurt anything to add that I mean we can follow up and and see what the status of the 401 I don't know I'm just asking the question I have one question Mr. Newman does the state notify you of 401 permits that have expired or no but again we can we can follow up and and with the DW and the developer to see what the status of that is and the impact of what's the work that's going on out there is that you have another question I have a question is that a lengthy is that as far as that process when they if it's expired they have to reapply to the Division of Water for that is that I believe so I believe it would require either reapproval of the existing permit or or applying for a new one okay thank you Hillary I just want to clarify that only two of these plans that's affected by this is H&I the section that's in the blue the rest of these are not affected by the 401 or the 404 application right the the 401 application would be would cover the whole farm the whole gas property one covers the whole farm yeah be similar to the to the 404 core permit I think they they acquired the 401 in advance or simultaneously with filing for the core permit and I believe that was that was issued and one of the conditions I think was approval by the core are the core requirements in the state's requirement the 404 401 pretty similar as one tougher than the other or what would you think like they're similar there that they are distinct programs again the one time the state had approved the 401 application but there was a contingency of approval of the 404 core application honestly don't I don't know I don't know what the term of the permit was when it was originally issued so I guess we need to add a condition that the 401 to all of these that the 401 permit I mean that the applicant needs to document evidence that he has the 401 permit yeah I think that would be it would be fair I mean to document either either that's not required for these plans or that it's in force okay any other questions for mr. noon thank you sir appreciate it okay we'll close this portion of the public hearing turn over the Commission for any further discussion comments motion let's ask staff Tom I guess there's been some discussion obviously about this 401 permit how do you all feel about we're comfortable with it come to Aladdin had absolutely yes sir if you wish all four all four yes sir and it would read I would say applicants shall document either evidence of a section 401 permit or evidence that the unit does not require a 401 permit similar to the 404 wording that we have okay okay thank you sir motion mr. chairman are we ready for yes sir I'm ready for motion mr. chairman I move for approval of the following plans and to add number 9 to plans F and G I move for approval of plan 2005-280 F putting number 9 on that one plan 2005-281 F adding number 9 to that one approving plan 205-282 F adding 401 to the number 9 and plan 205-283 F adding 401 to number 13 okay so I understand I guess what I see on the overhead it looks as though we've added condition 9 for plan F and G as is noted and annotated and then we're adding condition 10 and 14 is that what I'm saying on plans H H and I yes may I just suggest to make it easier perhaps adding the same condition involving both 401 and the 404 to all plans correct and therefore if it's not applicable we will get documentation of that and I think that would just simplify the action for the Commission and for everyone okay Commission understands okay all right okay we have a motion and a second to approve plan F G H and I adding the conditions regarding the 401 permit and the 404 permit to all plans okay all those in favor of the motion say aye aye all opposed say no motion carries thank you I believe the last item on the agenda for this afternoon is on page 8 it's 2000 DP 2007 151 Overbrook land company this is an amended final development plan the property is located at the corner of New Circle Road and Liberty Road adjacent to what I know Parkette drive-in on the interior of New Circle Road this portion of the property is all b3 with the p1 portion in this area this particular plan was approved previously but they have come back in to increase the buildable square footage in this area and to incorporate this lot that was previously excluded the subdivision committee recommended approval subject to 16 conditions however in discussions with the division of traffic engineering and their discussions with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet at the time the transportation cabinet I don't believe was interested in potential pedestrian improvements along New Circle but now that the corner lot is included in the development they had expressed some at least discussions about it with it with transit with division traffic engineering and so we have a revised condition that revises number 16 to include having including pedestrian facilities within their sign off and of course if they decide that it's not then the plan can still be approved if the transportation cabinet so chooses with that I'll answer any questions okay thank you mr. Taylor so with regards to the revised on the blue sheet condition 16 we're adding including pedestrian facilities correct yes okay all right sorry your copies blue mines oh no problem oh well it was just to confuse you apparently I'm it matches my outfit I guess okay no I think it's the same any questions for mr. Taylor at this time thank you sir petitioner mr. chairman members of the Commission my name is Matt Carter with vision engineering we have gone over the 16 conditions and we are in agreement also with the addition of the words including pedestrian facilities to number 16 so we are in agreement and at this time ask for your approval okay thank you mr. Carter you had to wait for quite a while just to be in agreement huh sorry about that okay this time I guess staff has nothing to respond petitions in agreement with conditions as noted we'll close this portion and I guess commissioner you have any Commission you have any comments questions motion mr. chairman I would move for approval of DP 2007-151 but the 16 conditions is noted and the provision and with the provision for the pedestrian access okay we have a motion and a second to approve with the 16 conditions revising 16 condition condition 16 to include pedestrian facilities all those in favor of the motion say aye all opposed say no motion carries thank you sir okay I think that a that concludes all our plans for today I'll ask mr. King I know we have one Commission item I'll turn it over to him we have one Commission item and a couple of staff informational items and we'll deal with the Commission item first we will need action on this the staff would like to suggest to you that you cancel your work session for next Thursday the 15th we don't have anything pressing to bring to you and this month being a five Thursday month you have a work session scheduled for the 29th which is going to be a big work session that will include the discussion of the digital billboard text amendment and also the report from your ad hoc committee on the consent decree both scheduled to be on that day so given that you would have a rather full day that day we would ask that you go ahead and and take action to cancel your work session scheduled for May 15 2008 mr. chairman I reluctantly move disappointed and I hate to have to move that we cancel May 15th work session okay we have a reluctant motion and a reluctant second to cancel the May 15th work session meeting all those in favor of the motion to cancel the meeting say aye all opposed say no motion carries thank you as an adjunct to that item I would just like to get a sense from the Commission I know there has been some interest in the consent decree issues and the Planning Commission discussion would the Commission like us to at least inquire if it's possible that at least that part of the work session could be televised I know we did that during the comprehensive plan sessions and we knew there was more than typical public interest and again I would just like any sense from the Commission whether you would like us to explore if that would be possible mr. pan would like to Mr. King I would really encourage you to do that and to because this is as much as an informational session not just for us but how we're going to do business the next two years especially not we realize in this committee that it's a work in progress it's going to be an evolutionary thing we're not going to have it all nailed down to the 29th but there's a lot of questions in our community about how we're going to operate and and we have some of our own and the more information we can get out there and the more and we'll have the players here that can explain it to us the best they know at this time and I think if we're going to take advantage of their time we'd probably be better spent to to make it as broad as we possibly can we'll make every effort to see if we can get that done I will remind you though that as a work session you cannot take official action it it won't be an official meeting but certainly you can get consensus on where you want to move from there and if you do have any formal motions that you need we will put them on an appropriate docket to follow up thank you we'll again we'll do our best to see if that can happen two informational items first of all I want to remind the Commission that we're having another one of our American Planning Association audio conferences it's an educational opportunity that we make available to the Commission and to planners throughout the region that will be next not next Wednesday the two weeks from yesterday this will be May 21st Wednesday at 4 p.m. to 530 p.m. so it's eligible for one and a half hours of required KRS training and the topic is community-based ground fields development again something that we're interested in and looking at and relative to our infill and redevelopment and environmental concerns so it may be an interesting topic that's the 21st at 4 p.m. in our conference room on the 7th floor of the Phoenix Center and one other item I want to mention with with some reluctance I would let you know that our council for the last bit Ed Gardner will not be assigned to planning duties any longer after today and this is his last meeting so he took an extra donut we know that and I know the staff would certainly like to thank Ed for all the work that he has done since Andrea left us and even before that he's done a lot of work with us and we greatly appreciate the high quality of the legal help that we've had and I'm sure the Commission feels the same and in that same vein we want to welcome no stranger to us for Rochelle Boland who has been assigned to our Board of Adjustment Activities and some other activities and she'll get the fun of coming to the Planning Commission meetings and being involved in those things as well I remember spending some time with Rochelle with BOAR so I know we've been through some through some tough ones welcome aboard we're glad to have you yes that's all the staff has mr. chairman okay thank you mr. King any any other questions comments and commission anything that okay motion for adjournment all right thank you