# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - November 21, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 21, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3175 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3175?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-11-21 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 8,916 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 November 21, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included four agenda items, eight public comments, and four motions voted on by the commission. The commission addressed four matters during the session. The Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3 was postponed. Three items were approved: a Zoning Map Amendment regarding a Conditional Zoning Restriction Modification; a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone 920 Citation Boulevard from R-3 to P-2; and a proposal for an Emergency Services Center at 115 Cisco Road. ## Attendance **Present:** - Will Berkley - Carla Blanton - Patrick Brewer - Mike Cravens - David Drake - Karen Mundy - Mike Owens - Frank Penn - Carolyn Plumlee - Bill Wilson **Absent:** - Eunice Beatty **Late:** None recorded ## Votes and Decisions **DP 2013-90: Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3** [timestamp: 00:21:18] A motion to postpone this item was made by Mike Cravens and seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed by roll call vote with 8 ayes and 2 nays. Voting in favor were Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, and Frank Penn. Voting against were Carolyn Plumlee and Bill Wilson. Staff was directed to address concerns related to drainage, storm and sanitary sewers, traffic cross-sections, landscaping, street names, tree preservation, bike and pedestrian facilities, fire hydrant locations, refuse collection, water quality certification, access easement finding, private open space, lotting, and building line conflicts. **MAR 2013-16: Zoning Map Amendment for Newtown Springs Drive and Newtown Center Way Properties** [timestamp: 00:36:45] A motion to modify conditional zoning restrictions for properties at 760, 789 Newtown Springs Drive, and 1433, 1445 Newtown Center Way was made by Bill Wilson and seconded by David Drake. The motion passed by roll call vote with 9 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in favor were Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Bill Wilson. Voting against was Carolyn Plumlee. The developer shall construct a three-plank horse farm fence generally parallel to the Legacy Trail along Newtown Pike, with landscaping to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. **MAR 2013-17: Zoning Map Amendment for 920 Citation Boulevard** [timestamp: 01:02:19] A motion to rezone property at 920 Citation Boulevard from Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) to Office, Industry & Research Park (P-2) was made by Bill Wilson and seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed by roll call vote with 9 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in favor were Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Bill Wilson. Voting against was Carolyn Plumlee. Conditions include a 50-foot landscape buffer along western and southern boundaries, maintenance of trees greater than 4 inches DBH, and staff notification of present neighborhood residents prior to development plan filing. **PFR 2013-9: Emergency Services Center at 115 Cisco Road** [timestamp: 01:15:02] A motion to approve an emergency services center at 115 Cisco Road was made by Will Berkley and seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion passed by roll call vote with 9 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in favor were Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Bill Wilson. Voting against was Carolyn Plumlee. Conditions require supplemental landscaping along northern and eastern property lines and maintenance of the existing parking layout with secured access. ## Public Comment Eight speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, raising concerns about three pending matters. **DP 2013-90 Postponement** Michael Galbraith requested that neighborhood residents be allowed to register opposition and ask questions during the current hearing, noting that a postponement would require them to reorganize for another meeting. [timestamp: 00:17:35] **MAR 2013-16 Fence Design** Chris Jones noted that the Red Cross buildings across Citation Boulevard have a four-plank fence, suggesting consistency with existing fencing along Newtown Pike. [timestamp: 00:36:14] **MAR 2013-17 Landscaping and Notification** Stacy May expressed concern that the current tree line does not provide adequate sound buffering and asked if additional landscaping would be required. [timestamp: 00:50:53] Jon Nicholas asked if Belmont Farms residents would be notified in advance of a development plan filing, noting the lack of a formal notice requirement. [timestamp: 00:52:32] **MAR 2013-17 Development Plan Concerns** Chris Jones expressed concern about the lack of a development plan, citing potential noise, intercom systems, and building placement issues. [timestamp: 00:54:09] Darryl Strode raised concerns about the unknowns of the development, including truck traffic, noise, diesel fumes, and whether other sites on the Coldstream Research Campus were considered. [timestamp: 00:57:27] **MAR 2013-17 Notification Motion and Land Use Context** Carolyn Plumlee suggested adding a separate motion to ensure neighborhood residents present at the meeting are notified prior to development plan consideration. [timestamp: 00:59:02] Plumlee also noted that the area is a food desert, which may contribute to slow occupancy of nearby residential developments. [timestamp: 01:00:43] ## Contested Items The meeting included three areas of significant disagreement among commission members and community participants. **Fence Design in MAR 2013-16** Commission members split on the appropriate fence design for the project. The debate centered on whether a three-plank fence was suitable despite its less traditional appearance. Supporters of the three-plank design argued it would provide better viewshed along the Legacy Trail. Others preferred a four-plank fence, citing its more attractive appearance. This represented a divided vote among commissioners on the aesthetic and functional priorities for the fence design. **Lack of Development Plan in MAR 2013-17** Community residents raised concerns about the absence of a development plan for the project. Residents expressed opposition over the lack of transparency regarding the facility's operations and specifications. Their concerns included potential noise impacts, truck traffic, and uncertainty about the facility's size and operational details. This community opposition reflected broader worries about proceeding without clear planning documentation. **Notification of Neighbors for MAR 2013-17** A procedural dispute arose regarding neighbor notification requirements. A motion was made to require formal notification of present neighborhood residents before a development plan is filed. This motion was notable because it sought to establish a notice requirement that did not exist as a standard procedural requirement for development plan filings. The dispute centered on whether such advance notification should be mandated despite the absence of an established standard notice requirement. ## Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3 **Agenda Item:** DP 2013-90 The Planning Commission reviewed a proposal for Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3. [timestamp: 00:17:04] **Key Speakers and Presentation** Tony Barrett and Michael Galbraith were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Concerns Raised** The Planning Commission identified unresolved concerns from the Division of Fire and Emergency Services and solid waste issues that required attention before the proposal could move forward. Neighbors raised objections regarding a setback conflict on the plat. Specifically, they noted that a 10-foot setback conflicted with a 30-foot requirement shown on the plat. **Petitioner Request** The petitioner requested a one-month delay to address the outstanding concerns raised by the Division of Fire and Emergency Services and to resolve the solid waste issues. **Outcome** The Planning Commission postponed review of the Springdale Subdivision proposal to allow time for these matters to be resolved. ## Zoning Map Amendment: Conditional Zoning Restriction Modification [timestamp: 00:23:10] The Commission approved a zone change to modify conditional zoning restrictions affecting four parcels located at Newtown Springs Drive and Newtown Center Way. **Key Changes** The amendment modified two primary requirements: - Fence requirement: adjusted from four planks to three planks - Landscaping: modified to align with the existing agreement between the property owner and the city regarding the Legacy Trail **Rationale for Modification** The modifications were necessitated by unanticipated physical changes resulting from the Legacy Trail's construction. The adjustments ensure that the conditional zoning restrictions reflect current site conditions and the trail's impact on the properties. **Recommendation and Approval** Both staff and the committee recommended approval of the zone change. The Commission voted to approve the modification. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Traci Wade, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Chris Jones. **Outcome** The zoning map amendment was approved, allowing the conditional zoning restrictions on the four parcels to be modified as presented. ## Zoning Map Amendment: R-3 to P-2 for 920 Citation Boulevard [timestamp: 00:37:58] The Commission considered a rezoning application for a 16-acre parcel at 920 Citation Boulevard, proposing a change from Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) to Office, Industry & Research Park (P-2). **Justification for the Rezoning** The applicant presented several reasons supporting the rezoning. The property's isolation from other residential areas was cited as a key factor, along with a poor market for multifamily housing development on the site. The proposed P-2 designation was presented as suitable for a distribution facility use. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The following individuals participated in the discussion: Traci Wade, Frank Penn, Stacy May, Jon Nicholas, Chris Jones, Darryl Strode, and Carolyn Plumlee. **Conditions and Protections** The Commission imposed conditions to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties. A 50-foot landscape buffer was mandated along zones designated for residential use. Additionally, the Commission passed a separate motion requiring that present neighbors be notified before any development plan review proceeds. **Outcome** The Commission approved the rezoning from R-3 to P-2 for the property at 920 Citation Boulevard. The approval was contingent upon the implementation of the landscape buffer requirement and the neighbor notification process established by the separate motion. ## Emergency Services Center at 115 Cisco Road The Commission approved the use of 115 Cisco Road as an emergency services center [timestamp: 01:03:23]. The facility will house E911 dispatch operations, an Emergency Operations Center, and public safety offices, operating on a 24/7 basis. **Key Speakers** The discussion included Barbara Rackers, Stephen Cherry, and Rick Curtis. **Facility Operations** The approved emergency services center will provide continuous operations around the clock to support emergency response and dispatch services for the jurisdiction. **Mitigation Measures** A significant component of the approval involved requirements for enhanced landscaping and screening. These measures are designed to mitigate the impacts of the facility on surrounding residential areas, addressing concerns about the 24/7 operations and associated activity in a residential neighborhood. **Outcome** The Commission approved the proposal for the emergency services center at this location. --- ## Decisions - **DP 2013-90** — postponed (8-2): Postponement of Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3 - **MAR 2013-16** — passed (9-1): Zoning map amendment to modify conditional zoning restrictions for properties at 760, 789 Newtown Springs Drive, and 1433, 1445 Newtown Center Way - **MAR 2013-17** — passed (9-1): Zoning map amendment from Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) to Office, Industry & Research Park (P-2) for property at 920 Citation Boulevard - **PFR 2013-9** — passed (9-1): Approval of emergency services center at 115 Cisco Road --- ## Full transcript My texture is the best for a canchilla I've been dealing the chainsaw, but how do you think I got the name over? I've been real, the game's over Call back young, ever since I made the change over The flat milk, the game's been a wrap, one Got me looking so crazy My baby, I'm not myself Lately I'm foolish, I don't do this I've been playing myself Baby, I don't care But your love's not the best of me And baby, you're making a fool of me You got me strong and I don't care who's me Cause baby, you got me, you got me so crazy, baby Got me looking so crazy right now, your love Got me looking so crazy right now Got me looking so crazy right now, your touch Got me looking so crazy right now Got me hoping you page me right now, your kiss Got me hoping you save me right now Looking so crazy, your love Got me looking, got me looking so crazy, your love Got me lookin' so crazy right now Your love, got me lookin' so crazy right now Got me lookin' so crazy right now Your touch, got me lookin' so crazy right now Got me hopin' you page me right now Your kiss, got me hopin' you save me right now Lookin' so crazy, you love Got me lookin', got me lookin' so crazy, you love I'm We'll be right back. If you say run, I'll run with you. If you say hide, you'll hide. Because my love for you would break my heart in two. If you should walk into my arms, Tremble like a roar Feel the grace of me Let's dance If you feel tonight is all Let's wave You could look into my eyes Let's wave Under the moonlight There's serious moonlight And if you say run, I'll run with you And if you say hide, we'll hide Because my love for you Would break my heart into The future moves through my arms and trembles like a flower Put on your Thank you. Weston Weston Weston Weston Who draws the crowd and plays so loud? Baby, it's the guitar man. Who's gonna steal the show? You know, baby, it's the guitar man. He can make you love He can make you cry He will bring you down And he'll get you high Something keeps him going Miles and miles a day To find another place to play Night after night who treats you right Baby it's the guitar man Who's on the radio You go listen to the guitar man When he comes to town And you see his face And you think you might like to take his place Something keeps in drifting Miles and miles away Searching for the songs to play Then you listen to the music And you like to sing along You want to get the meaning Out of each and every song When you find yourself a message and some words to call your own and take them home. He can make you love He can get you high He will bring you down And he'll make you cry Something keeps him moving But no one seems to know What it is that makes him go Then the lights begin to flicker And the sound is getting dim The voice begins to falter And the crowds are getting thin But he never seems to notice He's just got to find another place to play He's a way Got to play Thank you. Thank you. Oh, oh, oh. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. gentlemen. I'd like to welcome everyone to the November 21st meeting. I will call the meeting to order. First on the agenda, would there be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Chairman, whoa, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. I'd I'd like to ask for a postponement of the DP 2013-90 Springdale subdivision to the next subdivision. Well, I guess they're a combined meeting in December. Do you think in one month? One month, yes. Okay. That would be December 12th or December 19th. December 12th is the meeting for your subdivision. December 12th, is that what you're asking? December 12th. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Yes, sir. Please come forward. My name is Michael Galbraith. I am chairman of the president of the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization. I wonder what the protocol here is. We have several of our neighborhood members here today. A postponement, again, is going to require us to organize, be here again. wondered if we could register our objections to this proposal as planned for some of the reasons that have not been addressed in our deliberations with the developer. Okay. Thank you, sir. Let me ask Mr. Barrett first reasons that you need a postponement. Reasons. The last postponement, on the day of the meeting, I received a concern of the fire department that had not been addressed. So that was the first postponement. Today's postponement, I have another notice today that there's a problem that we need some time to resolve. That's a solid waste. Solid waste problem? Okay. All right, then. Thank you. Mr. Galbraith, these things do occur. and I'm not sure what the commission wants to do here, but in most situations we try and resolve these things without debating about them here. So let me see what takes place and we'll go from there. May I address the commission? There is one, for example, the plat on the parcel has a 30-foot setback line. That has not been addressed in any of these development revisions that are qualifying for a postponement. We wonder how is this going to be addressed. We understand that it will have to go before the Board of Adjustment, perhaps, or it can perhaps be overruled and adjusted by the Planning Commission. or we're not exactly sure about this. This is one thing, again, that has not been addressed that is an obvious objection of ours to violate the 30-foot setback that is on the plat when they're now proposing a 10-foot setback. So there, again, we're not exactly sure what our response has to continue to be when these such issues are not addressed. Okay. I think, Mr. Galbraith, what I would suggest right now would be working with our staff and seeing if you can reach out to Mr. Barrett and hopefully come up with these answers. At this point, I don't know what that answer would be. We'll reach out to Mr. Barrett and the developer again and be in contact again with the planning. And right now, we haven't done anything as far as postponing just yet. So, yeah. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. We're back to, Mr. Bear, anything to add? No. We're back to the request for postponement. It is up to the commission at this time, so. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'd like to make a motion for postponement of DP 2013-90 and saying that if they reach out to the applicants, maybe all that can be resolved and they won't have to come back down here. Okay. Right now we do have a motion for postponement of DP 2013-90 until December the 12th. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement until December the 12th. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes and I would say Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Barrett hopefully and the staff can Hopefully come to some resolution on some of these things. And at this point, some of them may have been worked out. We haven't heard it yet, but hopefully they will be worked out before they bring them to us totally. Thank you, folks. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, we'll move to the first item on the agenda, which would be on page 2, the Arbon County Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment, this MAR 2013-16. We'll let the staff set up for that. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. The first item on our agenda for hearing today is MAR 2013-16, and this is an item that the Planning Commission initiated just about a month and a half ago for consideration. It's a zone change to modify conditional zoning restrictions for properties at 760, 789 Newtown Springs Drive, and then 1433 and 1445 Newtown Center Way. So the existing zoning on those parcels is partially AU, B1, and B6P. The subject property is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Newtown Pike and Citation Boulevard. And you can see with the yellow lines the outline of the four parcels that the conditional zoning restriction affects. And those are here, these four. It may be also visible from that aerial photograph that the Legacy Trail crosses along the frontage of Newtown Pike. I'm going to use the map up here for our zoning. As I mentioned, the subject property does have agricultural urban zoning along its frontage for all four parcels. The largest parcel, 760 Newtown Springs Drive, is zoned B6P, which is our shopping center zone. and then the other three are in a neighborhood business B1 zone. In the vicinity across Newtown Pike, we have professional office and then office research and industry zoning. And then the rest of the Newtown Springs development to the rear of these parcels includes business, professional office, residential, and then also a new nursing home. To the north is the Griffin Gate neighborhood and golf course, and to the south is a portion of the Lexmark property, which remains agriculturally zoned. This request was made to the Planning Commission by the property owner, which is Newtown Springs, LLC, and they requested an amendment to the conditional zoning restrictions in order for the restrictions to match an agreement that they signed with the city in 2009. The current restriction reads, reads, the developer shall construct a four-plank horse farm fence and shall install planting within the 75-foot buffer area along Newtown Road, all as more particularly shown on the rendered landscape plan. In 2001, when the conditional zoning restriction was put in place, when the property rezoned, There was no plans for the Legacy Trail, although there was a green space area shown along the frontage of these properties. As you can see from this photograph, the Legacy Trail has been installed, and this is a view looking to the north from the intersection of Newtown Pike and Newtown Springs Drive. And in addition, there's also landscaping trees that have been installed parallel to the trail. And this is a view from that same intersection looking to the south towards Itlexmark property with Newtown Pike to the right of that photograph. The zone change was approved with this conditional zoning restriction as well as two other restrictions that related to prohibiting some uses more in the professional office area, but also requiring some landscaping be provided on the other side of Citation Boulevard to the benefit of Griffin Gate neighborhood. But this particular conditional zoning restriction, And when looking at the agreement that was signed between the city of Lexington and the property owners, there were two things that were different. The number of planks on the horse farm fence, the conditional zoning restriction requires four, the subsequent agreement requires three, and the amount of landscaping. So the applicant is asking for the later agreement, that is the one that they signed for an easement to provide the trail be honored. In essence, reducing the planks on the fence to three and then changing the landscaping so that it isn't in addition to what's normally required in the ordinance, but just that which is required in the ordinance. The landscaping here is shown there are no shrubs, but eventually the applicant will need to provide shrubs along their vehicular use area, just like any other development. And then these trees are spaced about 50 feet apart. In considering a conditional zoning restriction change, the Planning Commission must find that there's been an unanticipated change of an economic, physical, or social nature in the immediate area since the time the conditional zoning restriction was put in place. And in this case, the easement agreed upon between the property owner and the local government, and then the subsequent construction of the legacy trail were not anticipated at the time the restriction was put in place. So that does constitute a major change for the area. The property owner has acknowledged that they will need to install some additional planting in terms of shrubs and island trees and their development to meet the requirements. And also they would plan to install the fence and that landscaping at the time of any development on the properties. So the staff and the zoning committee both are recommending approval of this modification to the conditional zoning restriction for the reasons I've mentioned. And you have a finding for approval on your agenda and in your notebooks. And there is language there that would change the conditional zoning restriction. Number one, to read, the developer shall construct a three-plank horse farm fence generally parallel to the legacy trail along Newtown Pike. Thank you, Tracy. Any questions for Tracy? Tracy, two, I guess. One, this is shown as, you know, MAR 2013-16 Urban County Planning Commission. You mentioned applicant property owner a couple of times. I presume the reason it's listed this way is because the legacy trail? Well, the applicant requested that the property owner ask the Planning Commission to be the applicant. Okay. Maybe Bill can elaborate on that. The Planning Commission agreed to initiate this change back in the summer. I can't remember the exact date. But is your question as to why? Yeah, no, that explains it. Okay. I understand. The other, the fence, where will the fence be located? On which side of Legacy Trail? My understanding is it would be located between the Legacy Trail and the developable area of the property. Any idea how close to the Legacy Trail? No, I think that would be open for discussion when the development plan comes in. Okay. Our bicycle and pedestrian planner, Scott, mentioned that he would hope there would be some at least 10 feet between the trail and the fence. Okay. Something to consider. Mr. Penn, question? Let's follow up on Mike's. If that fence is within 10 feet of the Legacy Trail, will the landscaping be on the inside of the fence or the outside of the fence? I think obviously the fence would move around the trees. we wouldn't bulldoze down any trees for the fence. But the shrubs would typically be located very near the parking lot. That's how the vehicular use screening. Okay, so you're screening the parking lot. You're not screening the legacy trailer. No. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? Seeing none. If there's no other questions, thank you, Tracy. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Mr. Finn? Yeah, the three-board fence situation, normally in a front fence on a farm you do a four-board fence, and that's just the normal way to do things. I guess theoretically it probably keeps maybe a dog going under the fence or whatever. It really doesn't, but it just looks better. The three-board fence for decoration is just as well as the four-board fence. I don't have an issue whether it's three or four. My only concern about why they set a four-board fence is I think it just looks better. You know, it's just that's what most people do on the front of their farms is put up really a diamond mesh wire. They put up a four-board fence. My question with why you went with the three-board fence, the applicant, I guess, requested that, I'm just trying to figure out what we're trying to do here. Are we trying to make it look better? Are we trying to screen it? I mean, what's... I think the original intent was to provide screening from Newtown Pike to the development. And so they brought forward a typical fence, which would be a four-plank fence, and then a landscaping that was in excess of what our ordinance normally requires. Since then, they entered an agreement with the city, And I don't know if they requested the three-plank fence speed language in the agreement or if we suggested it. The issue at hand is there's two requirements out there, and they want them to be the same, and that's certainly reasonable. And they picked changing the conditional zoning restriction rather than going back to the council and changing that agreement. You're talking about $7 a board. Right. Whatever the length is every 16 feet. You're not talking about a lot of money here. And so I just didn't know whether we tried to make it look as good as we could or whether we wanted to. Is the staff recommendation based on the request of the developer? And if so, is this done, certainly not just save $7 a board? No, I think it's so that they're not constantly fighting between what the requirements are. You want to make the requirements match. Bill, did you have anything? Anything to add in terms of their intent? No, the staff was not party to the negotiations back when the agreement was worked out prior to the construction of the trail. And once we became aware of the inconsistency, we identified that one or the other had to change, either the conditional zoning or the agreement before the property started developing. So, you know, the applicant or the property owner, I guess, should say, I don't think they have a representative here to elaborate on why the change. Staff did find that the findings to change the conditional zoning didn't seem to be satisfactory. Well, I guess my two cents worth, I agree with Frank as far as consistency and look on a four-board fence. Most of what's on Newtown Pike going on out, I'm not sure there may be some on the south side of this development, is four-board fence, whether it's white or black or vinyl. It's four-board. I've taken a hard look at this, and with the consideration that the Legacy Trail is involved here, I would be leaning towards the three-board fence would be fine in the fact that it provides a little bit more openness as far as a view or a view shed would be concerned. That's my two cents worth. But normally I'd stick with a four-board fence, but I think in this situation, I think a three-board fence would be fine. Other comments, questions? If not, we're out. Yes, sir? Sorry, my name is Chris Jones, and I live near Newtown Pike. For the sake of continuity, I do know that directly across Citation Boulevard, you have the Red Cross buildings that do have a four-board fence that face Newtown Pike. I don't know if you want to give that consideration at any point. Yes, sir. Thank you. And that's pretty much what I was alluding to a moment ago. Everything else on Newtown Pike is four-board fence. However, if there's no further discussion, I'll ask for a motion. We can go whichever way anybody wants to at this point. We were debating as to which one would like to make the motion. Okay. You chimed in. Mr. Wilson? In due respect to this business about the four-board versus the three-board fence, I think I would move approval for MAR 2013-16, the Urban County Planning Commission. petition with the stipulations outlined by staff. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval of MAR 2013-16. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded. If there's no further discussion on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. next on the agenda moving down on still on page two MAR 2013-17 Urban County Council we'll let the staff set up for that Thank you. Looks like you haven't done all the work today. Well, Tom didn't have a development plan, but... Okay. Our next item is MAR 2013-17. In this case, the applicant is the Urban County Council, and this zone change was initiated in October by the council, and it is a request to change the zone of the property from a planned neighborhood residential to an office, industry, and research park, which is our P2 zone. The property is located at 920 Citation Boulevard, and it's approximately 16 acres in size. In terms of the zoning, the subject property here along Citation Boulevard, this is Georgetown Road, McGrathiana Parkway intersects Citation here, and then Newtown Pike to the east. The subject property does border the Highland Park neighborhood as well as the Belmont Farm neighborhood, and those are both in residential zones, as is the subject property. And then it also borders P2, which is to the north, and is the rest of our Coldstream Research Campus. Also in terms of orientation, the subject property is part of the Coldstream Research Campus, and actually it was Lot 1 when this property was brought in for rezoning. and you can see the campus stretches up to the north and mostly to the east of the subject property and was at that point planned to be Viley Road, but now Citation Boulevard here, how it was designed originally, and then Newtown Pike. because this is an urban county council initiated zone change it does not include a development plan so that's kind of our just showing you the orientation of where it is in terms of its relationship with other properties in the area the subject property was the only piece in 1990 1991, when the Coldstream Research Campus was rezoned, that was not zoned to a P2 zone. It was rezoned to an R3 zone at that time. It was planned for a public school site with residential use as a second option. Unfortunately, the school system was not interested in the property. and in 2009, Lexington Urban County Government purchased a 99-year lease for the property in order to construct an emergency operations and security center ahead of the 2010 World Equestrian Games. That would have been kind of a home base for all this, but several emergency management operations, although LFUCG entered into this long-term lease, the property still remains owned by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The operations center was never constructed at this site, mostly due to cost factors, and since that time, LFUCG has made plans for a new location for that center. The staff also understands that there is interest by a distribution and warehouse facility to locate on this property, in which case LFUCG would sublease it to a different entity. In terms of the, could you lower the lights? Thanks, Bill. The property, let me go back one. The center of the property is kind of shown with a tree line there, so it's somewhat divided into two pastures. It's in agricultural use currently. So these views from the ground are first of the eastern pasture with a center tree line along the right-hand side of the property, our photo, and then trees to the rear that would adjoin our Highland Park neighborhood. And then this would be the western side of the property looking south, and again you'll see it was utilized for agricultural corn or something this summer, And in the photograph, you'll see the tree line that is established along the Belmont Farm neighborhood. Again, this shows the tree line a little bit closer and where I'm going to use my pointer on our larger map. Highland Park is here where there's an agricultural urban zoning. And this open space, that's our Cane Run Creek and watershed. and there is a bike path within that area, the Legacy Trail, that runs north towards the horse park. This is a closer view of that riparian area on the subject property. This is a view of Citation Boulevard. To the northwest, there's an apartment complex development, actually, that's been condoed in an R4 zone. And then directly from that access point on Citation that's currently there, looking across, you'll see there's some development of the Coldstream Research Campus. the 2007 comprehensive plan does recommend medium density residential for this use which is five to ten dwelling units per net acre and that is something that's carried forward from previous comprehensive plans the plan then suggests a range of between 80 and 159 dwelling units on the property based on its acreage. The proposed rezoning from an R3 to a P2 zone then cannot be found to be in agreement with the comprehensive plan for the land use element of the 2007 plan. So the staff suggests to the Planning Commission that we review the appropriateness of the application in the proposed zone. The property is bordered by two residential neighborhoods, although no connectivity exists between those two developments. So the property is relatively isolated in terms of a residential use. Even though it's isolated, it might be a good location for multifamily. However, the staff is aware that the multifamily condominium development that I just showed in the photograph has actually had a slow rate of occupancy and being sold, which indicates that it might be a less than favorable market for that land use in this portion of the community. In addition, the land agreement between the Commonwealth of Kentucky kind of makes things a little more difficult in terms of residential development as well. The property does have over 900 feet of frontage along Citation Boulevard. and this is one of our community's major connector roadways between Georgetown and Newtown Pike. It will provide or does provide excellent access to the local roadway network, including the interstate, which is from the subject property here to the north with access at Newtown Pike. This type of access is definitely preferred for warehouse and distribution goods and would benefit the use that's proposed for the subject property. In addition, the property is already part of the Coldstream Research Campus, which is in whole, besides this property, zoned P2 already. The proposed distribution and warehouse land use is similar in terms of intensity and traffic to the previous two uses that were suggested for the property in terms of a school site and the emergency management center. And the property boundary does already have buffering to the two residential neighborhoods. The staff would suggest that that buffering remain in order to provide screening to a proposed warehouse and distribution facility on the site for those two existing neighborhoods. So the staff and the zoning committee in reviewing this are recommending approval for several reasons. that the first, that the planned neighborhood residential zoning is inappropriate and the proposed office, industry, and research park zoning is appropriate for five reasons. First, there's no street connectivity between the subject property and either of the adjoining established neighborhoods, which isolates the property. Second, there's less than favorable market conditions in this area of the community for multifamily residential. Third, the property frontage along Citation Boulevard provides easy access to two major arterial roadways in this area and is preferred by warehousing and distribution facilities. Fourth, the property is already part of our Coldstream Research Campus, which is in P2 zoning already. And then lastly, the proposed warehouse and distribution facility is similar in nature and intensity to the previously proposed uses of the property. The staff does recommend a conditional zoning restriction to maintain 50 feet of landscape buffer along both the southern and the western boundaries, which would be adjacent to the two established neighborhoods, and to maintain any tree that is 4 inches in diameter or larger. and they should be maintained there unless the urban forester identifies them as dead or diseased, in which case they could be removed. The staff feels this is an appropriate and necessary restriction in order to maintain the landscape buffer along these established residential neighborhoods. Happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Any questions? Mr. Penn. Tracy, I may be stating the obvious, but the reason we're able to do this without a development plan is because it's owned by the state or owned by the city? Or leased by the city? Leased by the city. So the city's going to take their lease and turn around and lease it to a private company? That's my understanding. Sounds right. Thank you. Other questions? and the private entity that proposes to develop the site would need to still file a final development plan for planning commission consideration it's just not going through the process with the rezoning yeah my point is is that we are approving a zone change without a development plan and we're doing it because it's not owned by a private person correct Tracy, if I'm not mistaken, there's what I'm going to say conditional restrictions out in the Coldstream area anyway regarding open space. And similar to our ED property, that would still apply to this? Yes, the standards of the P2 zone would still be in effect for the subject property. Okay. Very good. Any other questions? Not anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? Actually, yes. Nane? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My name is Stacey May, and I live off of Prescott Lane, actually back in the corner against Citation, where it's actually the distribution center would intersect. My question is about the landscaping and the 50 feet. Will additional landscaping be added? Because I will tell you that the tree line right now, though those are mature trees, don't offer a great deal of sound buffer. So I was just curious whether there would be additional landscaping or something added to help with the sound for large trucks. the p2 zone does require additional landscaping in terms of planting of trees in fact it i think it recommends a certain number and i'd have to grab my ordinance per acre on average and when the planning commission considers a final development plan for this site they can direct that landscaping be more fully developed along those boundaries rather than perhaps along the front edge of citation. In addition, the commission can also require fencing, if that's something that the neighborhood would like. Often there's landscape, I guess, zone-to-zone screening requirements as well, and those can be fences or hedges or berms, so there's some options. Yes, please come forward. My name is John Nicholas, and I live also right up against the property in Belmont Farms. Whenever the development does occur on that property, will we be notified well in advance about it? Tracy? There is a notice requirement for zone changes, but there's no notice requirement for development plans. so the neighborhood could request to be notified, and typically that is a Planning Commission action that they would put on the development plan since there's not one today. I think we can agree to make a note in our office to contact the Neighborhood Association, but there wouldn't be the same mail notice that goes with a zone change. Do you understand that? Yes. Okay. Yes, sir. I could also offer, oftentimes, I shouldn't say oftentimes, sometimes, when the Planning Commission has a zoning development plan, neighbors will come and ask to be notified about the time the next plan comes forward. Obviously, we don't have that option today. However, if the Commission would like, after you consider this matter, you could have a motion to direct the staff to notify those present today in writing ahead of the filing, pardon me, ahead of the consideration of the final development plan for the site. That would be at least consistent with what the Commission's done in the past. We just would ask the citizens to give us their address today on the record so that we can ensure that we get the mail to them. Thank you. Thank you. And I was just kind of headed in that direction. others that would like to speak. Yes, sir. Chris Jones again. I also live in the Belmont Farm subdivision. I'm a little concerned at this point that we don't have the development plan. Certainly, I understand the need to not have that at this point because of how the zoning change works with this particular property. My concern is the situation of where the buildings are going to be, how they're going to face any type of noise problem. Obviously, trees can create some barrier, but if you're using outdoor intercom systems, things like that, if you're using a distribution center that goes 24 hours a day, there's certainly going to be a level of noise pollution that we don't currently have in the citation area. So I'd like to voice my concern with that and certainly like you all to consider maybe seeing some development plan before we actually make this change. Okay, thank you. And all of those items that you mentioned can be addressed at a development plan stage as well. Mr. Berkeley, you have a question? Go ahead. Never mind, go ahead. Do we know if this development is going to use the whole site, or are we going to be looking at any further subdivisions of this track? I know it's 17 acres. My understanding is that the proposed user, and I was given some notes earlier today from Kevin Atkins from the mayor's staff, that the company currently prefers to remain anonymous, but they are proposing an operation that distributes veterinary medications and supplies. And his notes to me are to actually, in response to a request from the neighborhood, he indicated that the facility planned to be built will be a modern distribution center, and they don't expect noise or air pollution to be a problem. And the facility would have minimal truck traffic, and it would cease each day at noon. I hope that... Mr. Berkeley, to answer your question, it may be possible that when the development plan comes in that it would just be for part of the site. It's hard to know, not having seen any type of site. An early indication was that they weren't interested in 16 acres, but it's possible that they would still take on the whole lease. We don't have those details because they're being worked out possibly with the council versus staff. So it is possible that there would be another division. Obviously anything would come before us at any step in the change of the process. And I don't think the staff anticipates any other kind of access there, just that existing point. Anyone else like to speak to this? Yes, sir. We keep bouncing back and forth, but we'll get it covered. Yes, sir. My name is Darrell Strode, and I am a resident of the Belmont Farm neighborhood. I guess what concerns me as the known unknown in this situation, not necessarily knowing who the applicant is and what the extent of the development would be in terms of square footage of this facility, how many trucks would be coming in, 18-wheelers, the noise, potential noise, or potential diesel fumes and so forth. So we would, again, like to see, I guess, a development plan at some point and like to have some say at that stage. And I would also like to ask, given the hundreds of acres available on the Coal Stream Research Campus, were other sites considered as opposed to the one that's adjacent to two neighborhoods? Thank you. Thank you. I would venture to say that this was identified as a good location in dealing with probably Commerce, Lexington, and others during the process. Others that would like to speak? Anyone else? No, seeing none. Questions from the Planning Commission at this point? No. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. Should we approve this today? I wonder if we should put under 2, make an item B under the reasons that the staff suggested that notify the neighbors on record prior to the development plan, et cetera. Well, I think that would be a good idea. I think given the discussion today, the staff would be glad to do that based on the record. We'll notify these folks in writing. I'm not sure it needs to be a conditional zoning restriction, but you have a commitment from the staff that will do that. I was just going to say that that's not typically, well, I'm not sure that the ordinance permits that type of conditional zoning restriction, as Bill mentioned. That's not something that's permitted as a conditional zoning restriction, but certainly it's something we can facilitate. Okay. Okay. A little sidebar conversation up here. Could a separate motion from this motion aid in getting neighbors notified? Yes, sir. And then when you, thank you, Frank, when you asked or mentioned that they provide their address on record, can it be directly to you? What we can do, we have a list of the notifications that were mailed. We'll just match those names to that listing. That will be okay. They've told us what subdivision they live in, so that will be fairly easy for the staff to do. Okay. All right. Very good. Other questions? Statements? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Mutney. I kind of backed off from it, but I'm going to hit it anyway, I think. Under Item B, I've worked with a lot of those people up there in the condos there on Citation. One of the reasons, one of many probably, but one of the reasons that area is a little slow is it's one of our food deserts. And when you look at that area, I mean, these people can attest to it. There's nowhere to go get groceries nearby. There's not a drugstore nearby. So the services in that are not there. And that is one of the reasons that that development there on Citation, actually, I've helped some people come out of there into other properties because they didn't like living there because it is one of our food deserts. So while we're looking at all this, I think that's one of those things we need to kind of keep in mind. Others? No? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or a motion for this. Whoever's ready. You want me to do it? Go for it. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MAR13-17 for the reasons provided by staff, and I would like to do a separate motion for notification if that's agreeable. Okay. First would be the motion for approval of MAR2013-17 for the reasons listed by the staff. Do we have a second? I have a second. Seconded by Mr. Brewer. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Mr. Penn, a second motion? I'd like to move in regard of MAR 2013-17. A separate motion says that notification of neighborhood residents who are present at this meeting would be sent prior to the development plan. Motion has been made and seconded. And please, if everyone understands the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, folks, for coming. Next, commission items, PFR 2013-9, LFUCG Department of Public Safety. This will be property located at 115 Cisco Road. You do have a staff report on a TAM sheet before you. Good afternoon. This is on page 3 of your agenda. It's item A, under Commission Items, PFR 2013-9, and it's requested by the LFUCG Department of Public Safety for an emergency services center. The property is at 115 Cisco Road. It's off of Versailles Road. You've got Brussels Road here, Red Mile Road here, this is the Red Mile Racetrack, Cisco Road, and this is the property right here. The property is owned R2, and the comprehensive plan, the 2007 land use element, recommends it for other public uses, which are large and distinct uses, and they often benefit the public. They're service-oriented. Examples would be the airport, government offices, libraries, and that kind of thing. The property is owned by the Irving County Government and has been for several years, and it was formerly occupied by the Youth Detention Center. There isn't any known opposition to this, to the use of the property, and there is nothing in the comprehensive plan other than support for this. It's supported by the text and the goals and objectives. And then the goals and objectives, both 2007 and 2012, that apply to this are listed on pages 2 and 3 of your staff report. Some of you probably remember back in 2008 we had a public facility review for the property that Tracy just presented in his own change on Citation Boulevard for the same use. It was a public safety operations center. That never came to fruition, and now they're proposing to use the Cisco Road property. It is more centralized to Fayette County and probably will be a better location all the way around. The facility will include the Emergency Communication Center, which is the E-911 dispatch area center, the Division of Emergency Management Offices, which is an urban county government agency, the Emergency Operations Center, which is employee-based. It's a volunteer system that is put in place when we have a state of emergency called, like when we had the ice storm, we had the Emergency Operations Center in place, and everybody was there. They answered telephone calls from people and provided other services that were needed. Lex Call 311 will be there, and then there will be staff offices and administrative space for each agency. There is also going to be support space. There will be a media press room, a staff break room, an IT area and work room, and then public and staff restrooms, and the staff restrooms will contain lockers and showers. If you could put the site plan up, please. kind of difficult to read, but this is the entire property. This is Cisco Road right here. There are two access points, one there and one there. The property will be surrounded by a steel fence, and there is pedestrian access right here that will have a security gate, and this area up here will be the secured parking. You've got a 50-foot radius proposed right here for a safe area. Right now there's parking in there that will probably be removed. The emergency operations center is proposed for that area right there. The properties to the north and east are basically residential, commercial, and office. And if you could put the zone map up there, Bill, please. We've got residential zoning here. All of this is residential, this is residential, and this is residential. We've got a B4 zone property here. These are zone B1, and then we've got professional office right across this go road. The LFUCG Family Life Center is this property right here. It consists of that whole property, and the pedestrian access is here, and that will be secured between the two. There's a lot of screening between the property and the properties to the north all along here, except for this property right here that's zoned before. And ironically, where the screening is is where it's not technically required by the zoning ordinance because it's residential to residential, and it's not between these two properties, which it would be. But the government is exempt from zoning requirements, and so they're not required to do zone-to-zone screening. But they have said that they would like, in other situations, they've said that they would like to comply with the same requirements that the general public is required to do. So we are recommending that they do put some more screening along this property right here and along Cisco Road along the frontage. The property will be occupied 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and so it has the potential to disturb the residential properties around it, and so that's a recommendation we're making. The comprehensive plan addresses the need to continually upgrade the E911 system. The volume of calls increases each year, and that is based on the population growth of Fayette County as well as the number of ways that E911 is accessible now. used to be accessible only through landlines, and now people can access it through their cell phones, they can access it through their computers and other ways. And the division of E911 has all Fayette County properties mapped, and that allows for quick dispatch and response. And with this location here, that will be maintained and maybe even improved because it's a more centralized system, and the emergency response team will be located all in one place. One of the themes of the comprehensive plan is to provide infrastructure improvements to fully serve existing development and the future needs, and to enhance the quality of life in Lexington. And while this technically is an infrastructure as we know it that is required for development to occur, it does fit in with that theme because it is providing services that are essential to the public health, safety, and welfare. So to summarize, we find this in compliance with the comprehensive plan, goals and objectives, the text, and the land use element. It's supported by the plan. And the purpose of the Emergency Services Center is to provide a centralized and sizable location so that various aspects of service and public safety can be maintained and improved within Lexington. That's endorsed by the comprehensive plan. And our recommendation is because it is going to be occupied 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, that they do supplement the landscaping along the northern property line and provide some along the front edge of the property along the eastern property line. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be happy to try to answer them. And Mr. Chris Michel and Mr. Steve Cherry are here if you have any questions about the layout of the property. And Mr. Rick Curtis is here from the Department of Public Safety if you have any questions about the technical aspects. Thank you, Barb. Any questions for Barbara at the moment? No? Okay, thank you. Would the applicant anyone like to say anything? We're glad you came down. Well, thank you. It's good to be here. I'm Stephen Cherry with Murphy Graves Trimble. I'm an architect and a project manager on the project. And I don't have anything to add to what Barbara has said, unless anyone has any questions. It's a good, solid facility. It seems to be a good application for it. And we're still in the early design processes, of course, but I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Any questions? Yes. One question here. If you're in the early design stage, then parking and all that will remain the same, or can you do that to minimally impact the neighborhood? We are – parking will remain essentially the same. We're going to add a – the parking will be divided into public parking and – Can I bargue you? Thank you. Thank you. Right there. Okay. Thanks. This is all existing parking through here. We would like to extend the parking, the paving around this way and up to the other side. It's great in this type of facility. It's great if you can have a continuous loop around the whole site for any number of reasons. But for cost purposes, we're going to try not to do that. Plus, there's a substantial grade issue right here that would get pretty costly to traverse that with new traffic ways. So long story short, the parking is going to stay pretty much the way it is. This portion of the parking will be the public area. There will be a barber mission, the security fence that goes all the way around the property. Right here, that security fence will turn back to the building, and there will be a security gate right there, a sliding gate that's operated by a card reader so that people that have clearance to be in the building will drive up and open the gate and then park within the secured parking area. There will be another security gate up here at the north entrance and a card reader there also so those security personnel staff can come in here. And, again, this will be a security area as well. This will remain the free-access public parking area. The only surgery we're doing to the parking is possibly in this area. You see that dashed line right there? Barbara mentioned the EOC space that's right there. This is a 50-foot standoff from that space that comes out into the parking. We've got that space as deep into the building as we could for security purposes. And we may do some security planning out in here in the public side of the parking that's within that 50-foot standoff area to keep people from parking in there. But other than that, a big part of the site layout was to maintain this existing driveway off to the adjacent site to the south, and it looks like we'll manage to be able to do that. The goal here is to accommodate the parking needs, the vehicular needs of the facility without reworking the entire site again for cost purposes. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I guess what I'm getting at is that if I envision this right, this is just like a call center. I mean, you're not going to have any emergency vehicles or anything sitting there to dispatch. Right. So the question becomes is, yes, it's going to be used 24 hours a day, but you're not going to have that much traffic, are you? Rick, would you like to – Rick Curtis is here, and I might need to hand off to him to make sure. Commissioner Mason is here. And Commissioner – I'm sorry, Clay, I didn't see you there. No, there will be no major traffic impact. It is a call dispatch center, but it's not where the fire trucks, ambulances, or police cars are parked. So it's the employees that are in there on a daily basis. Any other questions? I would just like to add it sounds like from what Barb said you're very willing to enhance the screening, landscaping and screening and so forth which personally I appreciate even though the city can be exempt from this I'm always one to think we should lead by example whenever possible anything else? no, if not I'll entertain a motion Yes, sir. Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll make a recommendation of approval of PFR 2013-9. Second. Motion has been made and seconded before approval of PFR 2013-9 with staff recommendations. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks, for coming. That pretty much takes care of our items on the agenda. Any commission items? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I think we had this official meeting and filing scheduled for 2014. Did we want to? And I must apologize. I sent an e-mail out to that. We did that a couple of weeks ago. Oh, we did. Okay, that's what I thought. And Denise sent it out by e-mail to let you know that here it is. Put it on your calendar. And I'd forgotten we'd already done that. Okay, could I ask one other question related to it? It's not on the minutes, but we have the zoning item, public hearing minutes. We never approve. Kind of the same situation. We did approve those last week, actually, in a group of three. How they got attached here, I don't know. But I raised the same questions. I had Bill Sally run in to try and come up with an addendum to the agenda and come to find out we didn't need it after all. So, other items? You might. Yes, sir? I just want to state for the record that as old as I am, Cisco Road still makes me nervous because they threatened us with that all the time we were going to school, that if you didn't straighten up, you were going to Cisco Road. So it's sure nice to know that that's not a threat anymore. Any other commission items? since I forgot last week, any audience items? If not, our next meeting is December 12th. Well, December 12th is our meeting. We've got committees on December 5th. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and second all those in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Thank you.