# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - December 16, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 16, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1812 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1812?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-12-16 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 8,009 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on December 16, 2010, at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, under the direction of Madam Chair. The Commission considered ten agenda items, taking nine motions and votes during the session. Two members of the public provided comments during the meeting. The Commission approved seven items, including a major amendment (MAR 2010-13) for Rooker Properties, LLC; a zoning development plan (ZDP 2010-75) for Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1-B, Block F, Lots 2 & 7; amendments to enhance landscaping and street tree regulations (ZOTA 2010-5 & SRA 2010-4); a plan amendment (PLAN 2010-100F) for NDC Property (Wellington), Unit 1-B, Section 2, Lots 19 & 20; a plan (PLAN 2010-106F) for Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 & 2; a development plan amendment (DP 2010-79) for NDC Property, Unit 1-B, Section 2, Lots 19, 20, 20A & 20B; an amendment to the Official Meeting and Filing Schedule for 2011; and a public facilities review (PFR 2010-6) for Clay's Mill Elementary School. One item was postponed: the major amendment and conditional use variance (MARCV 2010-14) for the Iota Nu House Corporation of Alpha Phi International Fraternity, Inc. One item, the zoning development plan (ZDP 2010-80) for Lyndhurst Place, Block C, Lots 4 & 5, was presented for informational purposes. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 16, 2010: - Mr. Wilson - Mr. Brewer - Mr. Simpson - Mr. Sally - Mr. Owens - Ms. Copeland - Mr. Craven - Mr. Holmes - Ms. Flanton - Ms. Phillips - Mr. Martin - Mr. Thomas - Mr. Boggs - Rory Cayley - Tom Hatfield - Tim Haymaker - Mike Robinson - Greg Musil - Karen Angelusi - Bill - Tony Thomas - Mrs. Racker No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included nine motions, all of which passed or were postponed as follows: **Plan 2010-100F, NDC Property, Wellington** [timestamp: 0:22:05] Motion by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Brewer, to approve the plan with deletion of item 17. The motion passed by roll call vote. **DP 2010-79, NDC Property Unit 1B, Section 2** [timestamp: 0:22:43] Motion by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Brewer, to approve with 19 conditions. The motion passed by roll call vote. **Plan 2010-106F, Tuscany** [timestamp: 0:34:48] Motion by Mr. Holmes, seconded by Mr. Cravens, to approve with the condition that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for Lots 1 and 2 until public improvements are constructed in compliance with engineering manuals and accepted by the Division of Engineering. The motion passed by roll call vote. **MAR 2010-13, Rooker Properties, LLC** [timestamp: 0:42:00] Motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Flanton, to approve a zone change from B5P to P1. The motion passed by roll call vote. **ZDP 2010-75, Bluegrass Executive Park** [timestamp: 0:42:38] Motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Cravens, to approve with 10 requirements. The motion passed by roll call vote. **ZODA 2010-5 and SRA 2010-4** [timestamp: 0:54:22] Motion by Ms. Copeland, seconded by Mr. Owens, to approve amendments to landscaping and street tree regulations. The motion passed by roll call vote. **PFR 2010-6, Clay's Mill Elementary School Renovation** [timestamp: 1:05:24] Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Owens, to approve with conditions requiring submission of a stormwater management plan to the Division of Engineering and removal of portable classrooms at termination of construction. The motion passed by roll call vote. **2011 Official Meeting and Filing Schedule Amendment** [timestamp: 1:07:33] Motion by Ms. Phillips, seconded by Mr. Holmes, to amend the schedule to restore original filing deadlines for ND-1 overlay applications. The motion passed by roll call vote. **MARCV 2010-14, Iota Nu House Corporation of Alpha Phi International Fraternity, Inc.** [timestamp: 0:08:57] Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to postpone for one month. The motion was postponed by roll call vote. ## Public Comment Ms. Copeland addressed the meeting with comments on tree preservation and urban forestry initiatives [timestamp: 0:51:10]. She proposed the creation of a tree exaction program designed to replace trees lost during development activities, with particular emphasis on urban areas. Ms. Copeland suggested using canopy area as the metric for determining replacement requirements and referenced successful models of this approach implemented in other cities. Ms. Copeland also highlighted broader concerns about declining tree cover in Fayette County, attributing the loss to aging trees and insufficient maintenance efforts. She emphasized the need for a comprehensive strategy that extends beyond planting street trees, advocating instead for integrated tree protection and replacement policies to address the county's forestry challenges. ## Contested Items **Tree Exaction Program** A heated discussion arose regarding the implementation of a tree exaction program. Ms. Copeland advocated for establishing this program as a mechanism to replace trees lost during development projects. She emphasized that the city's urban forest has been declining and highlighted the stormwater management benefits that trees provide to the community. The discussion that followed explored various future policy options related to tree replacement and urban forest preservation, though the specific positions of other participants and the ultimate resolution of this disagreement are not detailed in the available meeting record. ## MAR 2010-13: Rooker Properties, LLC This agenda item addressed a request to rezone property located at 2241 Buena Vista Road from B5P to P1 zoning classification. The proposed rezoning would permit construction of a professional office building intended for use by the Social Security Administration. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request, contingent upon approval of a Zoning Development Plan (ZDP) within two weeks. Key speakers on this item included Tracy and Greg Musil. [timestamp: 0:36:23] The request was approved. ## ZDP 2010-75: Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1-B, Block F, Lots 2 & 7 [timestamp: 0:40:56] This agenda item addressed a development plan for Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1-B, Block F, Lots 2 & 7. The proposal includes construction of a 44,000+ square foot office building with 270 parking spaces. Access to the development is proposed via Buena Vista and an adjacent easement. Tracy presented the item to the body. Staff recommended approval of the development plan subject to 10 conditions. The resolution was approved. ## MARCV 2010-14: Iota Nu House Corporation of Alpha Phi International Fraternity, Inc. This agenda item addressed a request for conditional use and dimensional variances submitted by Iota Nu House Corporation of Alpha Phi International Fraternity, Inc. [timestamp: 0:06:46] Bruce Simpson presented the matter to the board. The applicant requested a one-month postponement of the proceedings to allow time to amend the application and conduct meetings with neighborhood associations. A motion to postpone was made and carried. The item was therefore postponed rather than decided on its merits at this meeting. ## ZDP 2010-80: Lyndhurst Place, Block C, Lots 4 & 5 This agenda item concerning a zoning development proposal for Lyndhurst Place, Block C, Lots 4 & 5 was listed on the meeting agenda but was not addressed in the recorded transcript. No discussion, debate, or formal vote was documented for this item. Based on the available record, this item appears to have been handled as part of a consent agenda or was otherwise not brought before the body for discussion during this meeting. ## ZOTA 2010-5 & SRA 2010-4: Amendments to Enhance Landscaping and Street Tree Regulations [timestamp: 0:43:52] The council considered proposed amendments to zoning and subdivision regulations designed to improve street tree planting and protection requirements. **Presentation** Ms. Copeland presented the staff recommendation for approval of the amendments. The proposed changes included two key modifications to existing regulations: - Removing the word "new" from street tree requirements to broaden the applicability of tree planting standards - Allowing bonding of tree planting as an alternative compliance mechanism **Outcome** The amendments were approved by the council. ## PLAN 2010-100F: NDC Property (Wellington), Unit 1-B, Section 2, Lots 19 & 20 (AMD) This agenda item addressed a final subdivision plan for two lots located on Ruscio Way and Reynolds Road. [timestamp: 0:10:59] **Presentation and Recommendation** Mr. Martin presented the subdivision plan to the body. Staff recommended approval of the plan with a specific modification: the deletion of item 17. This deletion was recommended based on the resolution of property line conflicts that had previously been identified. **Outcome** The plan was approved as recommended. ## PLAN 2010-106F: Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 & 2 [timestamp: 00:24:26] This agenda item concerned a record plat for two lots within the Tuscany development. The proposal included a requested waiver to allow bonding of public improvements for two separate developments—an elderly housing facility and a nursing home—under a single contractor. Mr. Martin presented the item to the body. Staff recommended approval of the plat with a condition tied to the certificate of occupancy, establishing a requirement that must be satisfied before the developments could be occupied. The resolution was approved. ## DP 2010-79: NDC Property, Unit 1-B, Sec. 2, Lots 19, 20, 20A & 20B (AMD) [timestamp: 0:11:31] This agenda item addressed a development plan for NDC Property located in Unit 1-B, Section 2, covering Lots 19, 20, 20A, and 20B. The proposal was for the same property as Plan 2010-100F. Mr. Martin presented the staff recommendation for approval of the development plan. Staff recommended approval subject to 19 conditions. Additionally, staff recommended the deletion of items 20 and 21 from the original proposal, as the conflicts these items addressed had been resolved. The development plan was approved by the meeting body. ## Commission Item: Amendment to Official Meeting and Filing Schedule for 2011 [timestamp: 1:06:01] This agenda item addressed a proposed amendment to the official meeting and filing schedule for 2011, specifically concerning filing deadlines for ND-1 overlay applications. **Background and Proposal** The item sought to restore original filing deadlines for ND-1 overlay applications. According to staff, a prior change to these deadlines had not been properly implemented, necessitating this corrective amendment. **Key Speakers** - Ms. Phillips - Mr. Holmes **Outcome** The commission approved the amendment to the official meeting and filing schedule for 2011. Staff had recommended approval of the proposed changes. ## Commission Item: PFR 2010-6: Clay's Mill Elementary School Public Facilities Rev [timestamp: 0:57:08] The commission considered a public facilities review for renovations to Clay's Mill Elementary School. The project involves demolition of 5,700 square feet of existing structures and addition of 20,000 square feet of new construction. **Presentation and Recommendations** Staff members Mrs. Racker and Tony Thomas presented the proposal to the commission. The staff recommended approval of the project with two specific conditions: - Submission of a stormwater management plan - Removal of portable classrooms from the site **Outcome** The commission approved the public facilities review for Clay's Mill Elementary School renovation project. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve Plan 2010-100F, NDC Property, Wellington, with deletion of item 17 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve DP 2010-79, NDC Property Unit 1B, Section 2, with 19 conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve Plan 2010-106F, Tuscany, with condition that no certificate of occupancy be issued until public improvements are constructed and accepted by Division of Engineering - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve MAR 2010-13, Rooker Properties, LLC, for zone change from B5P to P1 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve ZDP 2010-75, Bluegrass Executive Park, with 10 requirements - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve ZODA 2010-5 and SRA 2010-4 amendments to landscaping and street tree regulations - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve PFR 2010-6, Clay's Mill Elementary School renovation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to amend official meeting and filing schedule for 2011 to restore original filing deadlines for ND-1 overlay applications - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Motion to postpone MARCV 2010-14, Iota Nu House Corporation of Alpha Phi International Fraternity, Inc., for one month --- ## Full transcript enough rain to keep going and keep up the good work. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. If you want to know more about the PDR program, you can check the government website at www.lexingtonky.gov or you can email me, councilmember Linda Gorton, at lgorton at LexingtonKY.gov. Thank you so much. Everyone at GTV3 wants to wish you a very happy holiday and a happy new year. Visit us online at LexingtonKY.gov. Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year! Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year! Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We've got enough. Seven. We've got seven. Call the meeting to order, please. First item of business today will be approval of the minutes of November 18, 2010 meeting. The chair will entertain a motion for, are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Motion made by Mr. Wilson. May I have your attention, please? May I have your attention, please? the power alarm system in the Gumbin Center is back in service. Thank you. You're welcome. Now let's see. Motion by Mr. Wilson, second by Mr. Brewer. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Are there any postponements or withdrawals today? Mr. Simpson. Afternoon. Madam Chairperson, members of the Commission, Bruce Simpson, page number three, item number two, I owed a new house corporation of Alpha Phi International Fraternity, Inc. I just got retained two days ago in connection with this matter, and upon reviewing the file and the application and discussing it with my client, the decision was made to request a postponement in connection with this case. The applicant is going to look at acquiring additional property and amending their application in terms of the development that was coming before this body today. Two days ago when I was retained, I did notify the staff of our intent to request a postponement and requested that they contact anyone who had raised questions about our application to inform them of our intent to request based upon an amended application. which we would file. I subsequently had conversation via the Internet email with a representative of the Aylesford Neighborhood Association and promised him that we would have a meeting with his board and the full neighborhood prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, if that's when our minute application would actually be heard. Typically, I want to notify anybody and everybody of an intent to postpone, but given the late notice that for me personally in terms of being involved in this case, I did all that I could in terms of the people that I was aware that were notified so as not to convenience anybody. In any event, we do request a postponement for 30 days based upon the justification. We are going to file an amended application. We will be meeting with all of the folks in the neighborhood and informing them of our proposal prior to the commission meeting in January or whenever this matter is taken up, if it's not January, sometime thereafter. So at this time, we wouldn't ask for a 30-day postponement. Okay, thank you. And that would be the date, Mr. Sally? Your meeting in January for zoning items is the 27th. Okay. 27th? Do I hear a motion that for one-month postponement for MARCV 2010-14, I owed a new House Corporation of Alpha Psi International Fraternity? I'm sorry? Madam Chair, I just wanted to know if you wanted to inquire if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to speak. I'm sorry. Yes, I'm moving way too fast this morning, afternoon. Is there anyone in the audience that has objection to this postponement? Seeing none, now I will entertain a motion. Motion made by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please vote electronically. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Postponement for one month, January 22. Are there other postponements or withdrawals at this time? If not, then we will move on to the final subdivision plan and we'll let the staff set up. Thank you. Thank you. members of the Commission. I'd like to direct your attention to page one of your agenda, final subdivision plans, item A. It is plan 2010-100F, NDC Property, Unit 1B, Section 2, Lots 19 and 20. That is the final record plan that you see before you that is your first on your agenda today. I would also, if I may, draw your attention to page two of your agenda. Under Development Plans, Item A, you'll see DP 2010-79, NDC Property Unit 1B, Section 2, Blots 19 and 20, 20A and 20B as amended. This is the development plan that you see before you. This development plan is the development plan for the property that is being subdivided by the plat that you see before you. So my intent today is to combine the presentation and explain these to you together. I think that will lend itself to your understanding of what's being proposed. First, the record plat that you see here is for this property, and this property is located on Ruscio Way and Reynolds Road. The Myers Grocery Store and Associated Development is in this location. Here we have the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Lexington Green would be over here on the other side of the railroad going east towards Nicholasville Road. Of course, we have the large public park across the road at this location. This is at the very front of the development, again, at the corner of Ruscio Way and Reynolds Road. Commonwealth Credit currently occupies this location here in this lot. The plat that you see proposes to subdivide the remainder of this property into two lots. This one is a nice, almost perfectly square one-acre lot with this remaining acreage here in this L shape of just over 3.9 acres. The development plan is for the front end of the property again, and it does include this property. The amended area, again, is through here. Here's existing Commonwealth proposed building here. They are proposing three office buildings in this area, approximately 2,600 square feet apiece. There's an associated garage here with parking and circulation, as you can see, associated with development. here, here, and here, and although this is off-site, these are all approved access points for this development. You may recall on your consent agenda, you approved an assisted living facility last month for this area of this property. The plat was filed several months ago and recommended for postponement subsequent to the approval of a development plan. There was a conflict with this proposed lotting with the current approved plan in that we had a lot line running through buildings. We had a streetlight easement running through buildings, and there were issues like that. So staff recommended postponement until the opportunity to amend the development plan. The development plan then ran into a couple of problems and was postponed last week at your meeting until today. And those concerns had to do, again, with the lot line being appropriately shown here to allow this circulation to be constructed by this owner to allow access to proposed parking and to allow movement. So there was concern here. Staff also had some concern about the width initially of this access aisle here. This revised plan that we received yesterday afternoon has revised and changed this distance. It was 40 feet wide, extremely wide, a lot of pavement. Staff was concerned about how it would function. They've tightened that up to 24 feet. We think that's a much better width and layout. There was also some concern when this plan was initially filed with an access point, and it was this access point, but it had been shifted. And when it shifted, it crowded this access point. Again, this was an approved point, and it lines up with the access easement that runs in front of Myers. This one runs with that access easement that serves Simpson Optical in those developments. So traffic engineering and planning staff was concerned, again, about that spacing that they were proposing by crowding this. Subsequently, again, yesterday afternoon with this new plan, they've adjusted this back to its originally approved location so that we have the approved spacing now on these access points. And with the removal of those conflicts on both the plan and the development plan, staff is recommending approval. On the record plat, we are recommending approval subject to 16 conditions and deleting item 17. Again, that property line conflict has now been resolved with the new development plan. On page two, under development plans, again, with those conditions that you see, these are standard sign-off conditions and cleanup conditions. We are recommending approval of this plan subject to the 19 conditions with the deletion of 20 and 21. Again, they have resolved, they extended the pavement on 19 and 20 that I pointed out to you, the width issue, and they have also adjusted the access back to the approved locations, therefore there's no need to remove the proposed new access any longer. So those two conditions can be deleted. I know this is unusual that we've combined these presentations, but I was hoping it would assist in your understanding of what was before you today, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Are there questions from any of the Commission members? It appears that this is a two-lot subdivision, but the office complex that's going on the one-acre square lot, why is this not integrated into one lot? Is that tract, the one-acre tract, being divided off and sold to the developer of the office complex? This particular area coincides with this lot, which is going to be sold to a different developer. The owner, which happens to be Commonwealth, wants to retain or is retaining this problem. But we're reviewing it as one consolidated development plan in as much as there are two separate lots. It is an office park and was designated so. And so, in fact, this whole development is integrated as one development for access and parking. So we view it as one. And so by amending this area, they were required to amend this whole section of the development plan, although the buyer is only going to develop that at this time. Are there other questions from Mr. Owens? Thomas, the green rectangular area behind this one lot that they're proposing, what is that? What is it going to be? That's an excellent question. This is a future development area, and you will see a development plan before anything can happen there. There are no plans. And when they amended the current development plan, there were a bank of buildings that were running all the way back through here. And that's what created the conflict with the property line. So by removing that bank of buildings, they have affected this entire area. But they're only choosing to show development on this one-acre tract. again that's going to be transferred to a new owner. So they chose just to label that as future development, and that was acceptable. They do have access? Oh, certainly. There's access all established throughout the plan, and it's reciprocal parking access is required. Okay. Are there other questions? Ms. Copeland. Mr. Martin, would it be prudent for us to somehow put a fact or resolve or something so that there could not be landlocked land at that corner that's facing Reynolds Road so that we ensure that the bank people will give common access. Are you referring to this? Yes, ma'am. There is access here that I'll weigh back to this lot, and the overall plan is governed by reciprocal parking and access. Oh, okay, great. Yes, ma'am. Are there other questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin Petitioner. Madam Chairperson, members of the Planning Commission, members of the staff, my name is Mike Robinson. I'm here on behalf of Foster Rowland Incorporated. I've heard this presentation and we're in complete agreement with the conditions for approval of both these plans and we are ready to comply with those conditions. Does anyone have any questions of the petitioner? Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Not? Then we'll, Commission can, I'll entertain a motion for approval or disapproval. Madam Chairman, I'd like to. Move approval of Plan 2010-100F-NDC-Property, Wellington. There's a second. I have a motion by Mr. Craven, second by Mr. Brewer. Are there any other questions? You want to take the development plan? I think we have to do those separately, I believe. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. how we can take the second one. Move approval of DP 2010-79, NDC Property Unit 1B, Section 2, with the 19 conditions. Motion's been made by Mr. Craven, seconded by Mr. Brewer. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. I'm sorry. Thank you. Ms. Salley, we wanted to make sure, Mr. Cravenson, I want to make sure that he understood that his motion regarding the final subdivision plan showed a deletion of item 17. That is how I recorded it. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on the top of page two. It is a record plat, Plan 2010-106F, Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 and 2. This is for property out in the Tuscany development. is located to the west of that development. This is the preliminary subdivision that shows the two lots in question. And here's the record plat, again, that proposes to subdivide the two properties. This is Old Rosebud Road, which currently terminates here, Ogden Way. Here we have the West Wind subdivision with fine ebony, the street that comes up in here. This is the extension proposed on the preliminary subdivision plan which would be dedicated with this plat. And here is Villa Medici Pass which is a local street that will take you up into other residential areas of the Tuscany neighborhood. And again, that will take you towards Winchester Road in that direction. This is the preliminary subdivision plan. This was approved at a previous meeting. At that same time, you approved a development plan for lot one in this area. This plan was also approved by this body. It has been brought back before you today to request a waiver. We have a 10-acre lot here, 3.25 acres here. Again here's the proposed frontage. You can see with this plat, the frontage is intended to continue down and that is to allow the connection with Flying Ebony. The waiver that you have before you is a request to bond the public improvements associated with this proposed development. The applicant wishes to combine the site improvements on both of these lots and the public improvements by utilizing one contractor. Normally, when you get a record plat, of course, based on an approved preliminary subdivision plan, they build the infrastructure, the public infrastructure, and they dedicate it on the record plat. In this particular case, we have an interesting situation in that, as I stated before, you approved a development plan for this property. You may recall it was a 62-unit elderly housing development fronting on the road like this with parking associated here. This 10-acre track was just approved by the Board of Adjustment for a 130-bed nursing home skilled facility assisted living combination with a 30-bed Alzheimer's unit. There will be two structures. Although not filed yet, you will be seeing a final development plan on this property. It just received its Board of Adjustment Conditional Use approval. Again, the applicant is proposing to utilize one site development contractor to do all the site work for these developments. And this is a situation where they're utilizing the innovative standard for granting a waiver, is their request, and that this is an unusual situation. Normally in a residential development of this size, these types of uses, different owners, you'll see a developer will have a contractor do the public improvements. The one owner will hire a contractor, and he'll do his improvements. and in another one we'll hire a contractor to do those improvements. And in this particular case, by combining all that work with one contractor, they're hoping to alleviate the typical type of problems that they run into and coordination of work. In addition, by doing the work this way and coordinating this work, they will allow these projects, particularly, again, plot one, And I want to point that again. And Lot 1, the elderly development that you approved, the 62 units, is receiving Kentucky Housing Corporation financial support. So they're affordable units. Due to the financing timetable that they face, they need to proceed with recording of the lot. And this is further complicated by weather conditions. And the weather conditions in this case is the cold weather and the freezing and thawing. And this has created a hardship for the client in that this particular site has a clay in it that prevents them, when it freezes and thaws, from constructing the best and most suitable sub-base for the property. So it's an aggravation that they have in designing and constructing the sub-base for the property. So this is an additional problem that interferes with what they're hoping to accomplish on the property. Therefore, in the spring, it is their intent, should you approve the waiver, to begin the site improvements for the entire two lots and the public improvements that are required on this property. Staff has reviewed this. We discussed it with engineering as well. There was a meeting with the applicant where we went over the issues they were facing and their intent to address the public improvements and the site development. We do have the waiver report been handed out to you. Upon reviewing the request, staff has agreed that this is a challenge that's facing them that could be assisted by the granting of the waiver. Staff has recommended approval of the waiver subject to the innovative requirements of your ordinance as well as the hardship created by the type of clay that they're having to deal with in engineering the soils on this particular property. We do have one stipulation, a requirement that you can see at the bottom of your staff report on page two, that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for lots one and two until the public improvements are constructed in compliance with the engineering manuals and accepted by the Division of Engineering. The scope of the bonded improvements are not entirely known. They will be bonding the sanitary sewer, the storm sewer, and then the street frontage that you see before you on the plan. But again, with that, staff is recommending approval of this waiver. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer. Mr. Holmes. A graphic, is that normal? I mean, it seems like that would be for every project that has a clay or soil type. Well, the clays vary within our soils, and some are easier to work than others, and some are more susceptible to freezing and thawing. And, again, I'm not an engineer or soils engineer, but I'm sure the applicant could address that in some detail if necessary. And although, again, all the staff would agree that that is a hardship, it may exist elsewhere in the county, certainly. We believe the key to this waiver request is the innovative approach to these compatible residential styles, And we think the management and the construction utilizing one contractor as an innovative approach to this development is the most significant support for this waiver. Are there other questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Petitioner? Madam Chair, members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I have Tom Hatfield and Tim Haymaker here with me as well. We're in agreement with staff's reports and the conditions, including the additional one here on the waiver request, and we'll try to answer any questions you might have. Are there questions? Ms. Copeland? Can you tell us about the soil? What is so special about the clay? There's really nothing, it's not special, but the clays in Kentucky and in Central Kentucky are fatty clays that don't lend themselves to being worked and shaped and compacted during this time of year. Well, isn't that the same clay everybody has, pretty much? It's similar to all of Central Kentucky is. In other words, there isn't just one little pocket of special clay in Fayette County. This clay could be other places. No, ma'am, that's true. Are there other questions from commission members? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Seeing none, then I'll turn it over to the commission. I hear a motion, we'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion for approval of Plan 2010-106F-Teskney, with the recommendation that no documents should be issued for Lots 1 and 2 until the public public service are constructed in compliance with engineering manuals. And accepted. And accepted by Division of Engineering. Is there a second? Second. Motion made by Mr. Holmes, seconded by Mr. Cravens. All in favor, please vote electronically. Those opposed may also vote electronically. I'm sorry? Yes. Yes. Mr. Holmes was mumbling. Thank you very much. Motion carries. Madam Chair, that concludes the subdivision items, and we'll set up for the one remaining zone change in just a moment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Commission, our first zoning item today can be found on page three of your agenda, and this is MAR 2010-13, a request by Rooker Properties, LLC. This is a zone change from our interchange service business zone, which is the B5P zone, to a professional office P1 zone. The subject property is located at 2241 Buena Vista Road. The current zoning, like I said, B5P, and the property is bound to the east and the south by additional B5P properties, but it's also bound by P1 properties to the north, east, and mostly the west. And again, that is what the applicant is requesting. The area, Buena Vista, is parallel to Winchester Road, very near I-75, and the Winchester Road interchange. Just to the south on Winchester Road is the edge of the Hamburg development, including the Lowe's and Walmart area. And this subject property is in the center of what's considered the Bluegrass Executive Business Park. And other streets within the area are Thunderstick Drive and Executive Drive. The area is currently vacant that's proposed for rezoning, but the applicant is proposed to build an office building with 44,000-plus square feet on two stories for the Social Security Administration. And currently the Social Security Administration is located just in the upper to the, I guess, western corner of the subject property. You can see the rooftop that's constructed there. But they are proposing to consolidate their services in Fayette County into one building. And the application for zoning only includes this particular lot, which is Lot 7 in the Executive Business Park. But the area proposed for redevelopment is a little bit larger, and you've seen, I think, a consolidation plat and a subdivision plat related to this redevelopment. And it would include part of lot two and a small part of the backside of lot four, which fronts on Thunderstick. The applicant does propose the P1 zone, which is an agreement with the comprehensive plan at this location, which recommends professional services. And our comprehensive plan, again, is shown here. And you can see that the entire Bluegrass Executive Office Park is recommended for professional office. And there are just the two lots that were rezoned at a previous date to allow for hotels. And then for the comp plan recommendation along Winchester Road, it's for highway business and or interchange businesses. So since the application is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the staff is recommending approval subject to the ZDP being approved and certified within two weeks. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Does anyone on the commission have a question? Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. The zoning development plan for this item is just below on item B on page 3. It is ZDP 2010-75, the Bluegrass Executive Park, Unit 1B, Block F. The property is located at 2241 Buena Vista Road. As Tracy said earlier, the property is located off Winchester Road, Thunderstick, and the Buena Vista Drive. The property currently as proposed would have access to an access easement here through the adjacent professional office building that is built and developed here as well as proposing two access points off of Buena Vista. Development does have approximately 44,000 square feet of building and 270 parking spaces. The subdivision committee approved this plan subject to 10 conditions on your agenda and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Anyone on the commission have a question? Thank you. Petitioner. Chair Greg Musil. Madam Chair, members of the commission, Rory Kaley of the EA Partners. We're in agreement with staff's presentation and request approval. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? If not, then I'll turn it over to the Commission or take the zoning first. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of MAR 2010-13 Rooker Properties, LLC. I have a motion by Mr. Owens, so I hear a second. Second by Ms. Flanton. All in favor, for all those opposed, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Madam Chair. Yes. I move for approval of ZDP 2010-75 Bluegrass Executive Park with the 10 requirements. Motion by Mr. Owens. Do I hear a second? Second by Mr. Cravens. Is there any further discussion? If not, vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the Commission, our next item is ZODA 2010-5 and SRA 2010-4. So this is a combination text amendment to the zoning ordinance and amendment to the subdivision regulations. It is on page 5 of your agenda and can be found behind, I believe, tab 3 in your notebooks. This is an amendment to enhance landscaping and street tree regulations and was requested by the tree board and initiated by the Urban County Council. The tree board is one of our organizations or boards within government, and they focus on tree installation standards and making sure that trees in Fayette County are protected. They have worked for over a year to prepare these text amendments and request them from the council, including going to the planning committee in September and October. So these changes, while they seem minimal, will make a significant difference in how street trees are addressed, and in addition, making sure that trees are protected not just for new development but for redevelopment areas. The first change proposed is to Article 18 of the zoning ordinance, and there's three broken down into three changes. The first happens, and the text is in your notebook, so I didn't repeat it on the screen here. 18-4D involves maintenance and installation. Currently, there's a statement there that's rather vague about installation and maintenance. And there's a proposal to delete that statement to provide more precise language that refers to a national standard document called 300A. And then also refers to Section 4 of our own planting manual for the appropriate tree installation standards. And it also lists all, I believe there's six, corridor landscape ordinances that currently are adopted by council, but nowhere in our ordinance does it kind of collect those together. So that's the first two changes in Article 18. And the third change is something that building inspection requested, and that's to add a statement about enforcement of Article 18, which deals with mostly landscaping. So it's a new section to provide for enforcement for building inspection. Article 26, the change to this language is also pretty minimal, but it's a statement in the first paragraph of the article related to the purpose. Currently, it says that tree protection, planting, and new developments should be, trees should be protected. And this would add language as the Planning Commission considers redevelopment of parcels that trees would be considered for protection as well. I think that was the general intent, but the tree board wanted to make sure that that was clearly stated, not just for our group, Planning Commission, Division of Planning, but also for any applicant coming in. I would note that Karen Angelusi from the tree board gave me that beautiful picture of a chinkapin oak off of Parker's Mill. I think it's Parker's Mill. Moving to the subdivision regulation amendments, Article 6-10 is related to landscaping and tree planting standards. And the first change within that section involves deleting the word new. Currently, street trees are required for residential collector and local streets, but only if they're new streets. So they've had a situation or several situations, I think, where you have new development, new residential development, but not a new street being constructed. So street trees aren't required. And the tree board thinks that that is a kind of a missing link in our tree program and misses building our urban forest. So they're proposing to delete that word new, and that would require then street trees on any residential street when new development is proposed or subdivision is proposed. The next change of 610 is related to deleting the person. Basically, it designates a person, the landscape examiner, which used to be a position in the Division of Building Inspection, as the person who designates where street trees are to be on each plat, the number, and what street frontage they have. And so Building Inspection and the Tree Board would like to delete that reference just to kind of clean things up. The next one, again, is a deletion of a designated entity to do something, and that is deleting the Division of Building Inspection from being the designated collector of a $10 fee. And the tentative thinking is that the Division of Planning would collect that fee. When we go to record PLATS, we would also collect that $10 fee. It goes to the general fund, so there's really no difference in where the money goes, just who collects it. And then the last change is a little bit more comprehensive, not in terms of the change to our text but in how it will impact developers, and that is removing a requirement from the subregs that all street trees be planted within one year of a plat being recorded. And typically that gives a nice window of a year. You have enough of a planting cycle to fit it in the spring or the fall. but it's been found that a lot of times within the year those houses aren't built yet, and building inspection is uncomfortable with requiring trees to be planted when the house is not yet constructed. There's no one there to take care of the tree, and it could be damaged when the house is constructed. So in looking at different ways to require the trees at the right time, they found that allowing them to be bonded, like any kind of infrastructure, a sidewalk, a street, was more appropriate. And so they're proposing to delete the requirement that they be planted within the one year and then directing people to look to the Division of Engineering, their engineering manual, for how those street trees or the timing of when street trees would be planted. And that allows, again, the developer to bond a street tree. They can plant it before the plant is recorded, but I would guess that most would wait and plant them at the most appropriate time. So that's the last of the changes, and I just printed our two findings on the board there for approval. I won't run through them, but I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Are there any questions from commission members? Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? If not, then I'll turn it over to the Commission for a motion. Ms. Copeland? I just have some comments for us to think about. This is largely a housekeeping measure for street trees. And if you'll recall, when we had the gentleman, I can't remember his name right now, could talk to us about water quality and how we're losing our tree cover in Fayette County. A lot of the trees were planted in the 1930s or so, and we had pin oaks, and they died because that's their natural lifespan, or they didn't have the water they wanted. And you can see, if you've lived here very long, that the tree cover is going down. And to just plant street trees is a burden on the city cleaning up the trees, and also it does not stop the water. It does not slow down the runoff. That's one of the jobs of trees. Let's think about having an exaction program for trees. So that when we are confronted, for instance, by a major, big, huge heritage tree that was outside of Whitehall, instead of wrapping our arms around it and trying to save it, which we did not, it's still alive, but it probably won't be alive for very long, we take the square footage of the tree canopy and say that is XYZ, and therefore if you're going to cut down that tree, we have to replace it on parkland or beside streams or wherever we designate is a good place to place trees for our mutual benefit. But as we increase urban density, we're going to make less of an ideal place to grow big trees. But we have parks and we have stream banks and we have a lot of little creeks where we could put the trees that slow down the stormwater. So let's just think in the future, instead of just planting more trees up and down the street, we think about a tree exaction program. And other communities that are dense have this. We don't have to invent the wheel. Thank you very much. Are there other comments, questions? If not, then the Chair will entertain a motion. I move for approval of the revisions to the Article 18, the ZODA 2010-5 and SRA 2010-4 amendments to landscaping and street tree regulations. Motion by Ms. Copeland. Do I hear a second? Second by Mr. Owens. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. The next item on our agenda. Madam Chair. Yes. I just wanted to bring up one question. Could we have the staff look into a tree exaction program? I don't think we need to have it as part of this motion, but it's something worth looking into at a later date. Certainly we can. We have in the past, actually, when the urban forestry program was under our care back some years ago, when it was first being set up, in addition to creating the tree ordinance, which requires tree canopy coverage with development, We did look at other programs because the early assessments of our first two urban foresters was the fact that our urban forest, of course we were focusing on the public realm, but even in there was very ill. We looked at a number of programs that were successful, and most of them involved a tax levy of, for lack of a better term, of so many cents per foot or something like that. Cincinnati has a program like that, and they use that to fund an entire operation in their government, which plants, manages, and one of our biggest problems is that there's no overall maintenance program for the trees, and they look at that kind of program as well. So we do have some examples. There are many different types of approaches that are used out there. I know the tree board, I think, is looking into those kinds of things as well as others involved in the government. to have a levy of that type. Of course, we'll take Urban County Council action. We will certainly be glad to pull that kind of information and research together for you. Thank you very much. Does anyone else have any comments in regard to the trees? Not. We'll move on in the agenda. The last item on our agenda today is a commission item, and it's PFR 2010 Day 6 of Clay's Mill Elementary School presentation. We're almost ready. That's good enough. This is on page 7 of your agenda. It's item A, under Commission Items. As Ms. Richardson said, it's Clay's Mill Elementary Public Facilities Review, and the property is located at 2319 Clay's Mill Road. We've got Clay's Mill along here. This is Hillendale. This is Cardinal Lane, and that connects Harrodsburg Road to Clay's Mill. This is the property right here, Southland Park. Mary, Queen of the Holy Rosary School and Church, and then Lexington Catholic is over here. And then all of the rest of the properties surrounding this are single-family residential. It's all R1C zoning. And the property itself contains 19.43 acres. And the existing permanent building is 69,000 to 70,000 square feet in size. And then there are nine portable classrooms on site behind the building. Bill, if you could put the site plan up there, please. This is the permanent structure right here, and then these are the portable classrooms here. This is Clay's Mill Road down here. They're adding 20,000 square feet to the property. In the process, they're going to demolish almost 5,700 square feet, but they're going to add 20,000. There will be a net total of about 84,000 square feet. The access into the property is this basic access right here, and that is off of Clay's Mill Road. And then there is another access into the parking area, which is existing. All of this is existing. And that is to remain, and the access from Clay's Mill Road is to remain. But they're adding seven parking places right here and a service loop pickup drop-off area for the parents right there. The 2007 comp plan recommends public education for the property, and that is probably a reflection of its historic uses in elementary school. And public education is categorized or is described as all public school facilities, including the central office and all the accessory facilities for the public elementary, middle, and high schools. Of all the goals and objectives in the comp plan, five goals and 13 objectives are in supported this and those are listed on pages two to three of your staff report. All are in support and the text of the comprehensive plan is also in support of this. I didn't find anything in opposition and we are not aware of any public opposition to this either. Clay's Mill Elementary has been there for several years and they've been discussing its renovation for several months. And the two architects that were on the team are here, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boggs, and if you have any questions specifically about the project after this presentation. The physical condition of several schools is listed in the comprehensive plan specifically. It would be either poor, poor to fair, fair, good, whatever. This is one of the schools that was listed. And the ones that were in poor or poor to fair condition were a higher priority, and those have basically been all have been done as a public facility review. Most of them are completed. Cassidy Elementary was one, and that construction has been completed, and others are close to completion. And then the ones that are in fair condition or listed as fair condition are a lower priority, and they're now being brought up to the standards of the school system. This is one of the ones that was listed as fair. And some are in the beginning of the renovation stage, and some are still in the planning stage. We'll have four more early next year. One will be Breckenridge, one will be Cardinal Valley, one will be Mary Todd, and one will be Mill Creek Elementary. This project is a complete renovation, and as I said, they're going to demolish a small portion of the school and add 20,000 square feet. And new construction will be classrooms, library, and administrative office space. Then they're going to renovate the cafeteria and the kitchen and the gym and some of the classrooms. And then the finishes and systems, such as lighting and electrical, all of those systems are going to be renovated, and everything will be ADA compliant. Everything when it's done will be ADA compliant. They're resurfacing the existing parking area, and they're adding, I think, some new walkways and a playground. This is a playground that will be added, and then they're going to connect that to this walkway here. And this is one of the additions to the building. This is one of the additions, and this is one of the additions. The service loop, the new service loop in the new parking places will be made of permeable pavement, and so that will help to ensure compliance with the green infrastructure part of the comprehensive plan. In the text of the plan, it says that one of the chief concerns is to supply safe, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing state-of-the-art facilities for the students. And one of their goals is to become a world-class school system by 2020. And so this is part of the plan to do that. There is one issue that we probably should be aware of or that you should be aware of and we should be concerned about is the stormwater issues in the area. The area has a history of stormwater issues, and it's probably because of the nearby floodplain and the fact that there's an inadequate or less than adequate storm sewer system in the area. There isn't any designated FEMA area any closer than a half mile to the property, and the additional impervious area that they're adding is minimal. But we still recommend that they use best management practices in their construction, which they probably will, but we just recommend that. And that would be to help prevent exacerbating any of the existing problems in the area. And the school system is exempt from zoning regulations, but in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare, we recommend that they provide a plan for storm drainage and retention to the Division of Engineering and that be accepted by engineering. We find this to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan, the land use element, which recommends public education, the text and the goals and objectives, and recommend approval with the two recommendations that are listed on the back of your staff report, One being that any applicable permits be obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to commencing construction and remodeling of the schooling grounds, and that a plan for stormwater management be submitted to and accepted by the Division of Engineering prior to issuance of any permits for construction. And the second would be that the portable classrooms present on the property be removed at the termination of construction, as noted on the site plan. If you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to answer them. And again, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boggs are here to answer any specific questions about the project. if you haven't. Are there questions from any commission members? Ms. Phillips? Barbara, are the temporary classrooms currently being used as overflow, or are they just being brought in to accommodate the renovation? I think they probably have been there for a long time. I don't know. Are you familiar with that? Good afternoon. Tony Thomas. There are two on the site currently. The other six are going to be brought in to help with the phasing of the construction. Some students will have to move out of the building while the phasing is taking place. And at the end of the project, as Mrs. Racker mentioned, all of those portable facilities will be removed from the site as part of the contract. That was one of my questions is whether or not you're going to continue to use the school during the renovation. The other question I have is, is there any connectivity to the adjoining neighborhoods to the site, or would students who want to walk to the school have to come out to Clay's Mill Road? There is currently through the park a path at the very back, but we're not developing that at all. In fact, in addition to what she was mentioning, there is a grant currently going on, and there is under design a project to completely, I guess, make the park area at the back of the site much greener. I believe there's going to be some bioswells and things of that nature installed. and that park will be developed. They may put some small little bridges and walkways over that, but that is outside of our current scope of the project. That area back there will be developed under another grant. Are there other questions? Okay. If not, then I will entertain a motion. staff recommendation of approval for PFR 2010-6 staff report on Fayette County Public Schools Clay's Mills Elementary School renovation. I have a motion by Mr. Brewer. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Owens. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We have one final item on commission items, and that is an amendment to the official meeting and filing schedule for 2011. And I believe the staff has passed that out. Yes, Madam Chair. We did put this at your place. This should look very familiar because last month you adopted the schedule for your meetings next year. We have added the item under number three that appears in gray on the second line of that sheet. Staff is proposing a new filing deadline be created for ND1 overlay applications. We have not had any of these types of applications previously, but basically this would restore the original filing deadlines that were contemplated for those a little over a year ago. When we moved back the filing deadlines to accommodate technical committee review of plans a year ago, this change was not made in accordance with that. So we're kind of going back and setting this the way it was originally contemplated. One of those unintended consequences. Yes. Are there any questions from commission members regarding this? I would also point out these applications will still go to your zoning committee. They'll be reviewed just like any other application. Thank you. If there are no other questions, then the Chair will entertain a motion regarding the amendment to the official meeting and filing schedule for 2011. I believe my commission members are asleep today. I have a motion by Ms. Phillips and a second by Mr. Holmes. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Are there other items that the commission wishes to bring before us today? If not, I wish you all a Merry Christmas, a Happy Holidays, and I'll see you next year. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Oh, wow. Second. That one was quick. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned. Happy New Year. The End