Shalala, sleep, sleep, sleep Shalala, how long must I dream? Well, I know it's kinda late I hope I didn't wake you But what I've gotta say can't wait I know you'd understand Every time I try to tell you The words just came out wrong So I have to say I love you In a song Yeah, oh, it's kind of strange Every time I'm near you I just run out of things to say I know you'd understand And every time I tried to tell you The words just came out wrong So I'll have to say I love you in a song Every time your time was right, all the words just came out wrong. So I have to say I love you under any song. Yeah, no, it's kind of late. Hope I didn't wake you. But there's something that I just gotta say. Oh, you'd understand. Every time I try to tell you The words just came out wrong So I have to say I love you in a song We'll be right back. Fly Robin Fly Fly Robin Fly Fly Robin Fly Up up to the sky Bye. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo I think we do have the time of 1.30, so I will call this meeting for March 27, 2014 to order. First, I would like to welcome our newest Planning Commission member, Mr. Joe Smith. he's new to the planning commission however he has served on the board of adjustment for two years and we'd like to welcome him joked that he was jumping out of the frying pan into the fire but he has been indoctrinated and I'd like to welcome him and I'm sure he will be a very big and huge asset to the planning commission on the agenda are minutes from february 27 2014 they were emailed to the commission members there has been some changes changes are noted on the minutes that are before you i would entertain a motion for approval unless there are any other changes Ms. Plumlee? Move approval of February 27, 2014 public hearing minutes. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for approval of minutes for February 27, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. And there you go. We do have Mr. Smith official. He's even on the granicus now. Motion passes. Any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. On the front page of your agenda under A, Development Plans, DP 2014-13 growth properties. I would request a postponement to the next Planning Commission hearing, I believe in two weeks. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, and I'm trying to get an actual date on that. It'll be April 10th. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2014-13 to April 10th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded to postpone DP 2014-13 until April 10th, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Do we have any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page two, item one, Boone Creek Properties, LLC, DBA, Boone Creek Outdoors, Zoning Map Amendment, and Development Plan. I represent the applicant, Boone Creek Properties, and Boone Creek Outdoors. I note on the agenda that the conditional use portion is not on the agenda to be heard today. Is that correct? That's correct. We request that you reconsider your motion from last month where you decided not to hear the conditional use request. We know it can't be heard today. We know if you granted this, it would have to be heard next month because you haven't advertised it. But we still feel very strongly that a hearing is required under Kentucky state law and the Kentucky and U.S. constitutions. I'm not going to go through all the argument we had last time. but this is a different case from what was heard before and there's no requirement that because there's litigation pending on a different case involving big acreage that you not hear the conditional use case. So we're requesting you to reconsider your decision from a month ago and set the conditional use and zone change and development plan for hearing at next month's planning commission meeting. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. With that, I do know that the motion, as far as conditional use, the discussion was not to hear it because it was currently in the court system under appeal. And that motion not to hear it passed. Ms. Jones, can you provide us some legal advice? well i think from a procedural standpoint if you are going to reconsider it somebody who was on the prevailing side of that motion would have to make a motion to reconsider it first off second off my opinion is no different than what i told you at the last hearing you know i still think that it is required to be heard but this commission voted that you believe that the pending actions were the same so it's your all's call but if you are going to take a vote on that it would have to come from the prevailing side i believe okay thank you any any member of the commission from the prevailing side wish to make a motion to reconsider Seeing none, Mr. Murphy. In that case, then I have no choice but to ask you to indefinitely postpone the zone change and the development plan on this case. Okay. Thank you. No? Okay. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this request? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for indefinite postponement of Boone Creek properties, MARC 2014-1. Move indefinite postponement for Boone Creek properties, period. Okay. The motion has been made and seconded for the indefinite postponement of Boone Creek properties, MAR 2014-1, in the associated development plan. If there's no discussion on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, we just want to confirm for the record, Mr. Wilson, will you have a second? Yes, I do. Yes. Thank you. That motion passes. Thank you. Moving on through the agenda, page 3, item 2, Kids House Zoning Map Amendment and Kids House Zoning Development Plan, MAR 2014-4. We do have a variance report that would be before you on a manila-vanilla sheet of paper. We have the zone change variance and a development plan associated with this request. Mr. Chairman, would you like the staff to see if this item and perhaps the following item might qualify for abbreviated? Sure. I'm sorry. Go ahead. As far as asking for an abbreviated hearing? The remaining three zone changes on your agenda may qualify for abbreviated hearings. They all have been recommended for approval by your committees, and the development plans also carry an approval recommendation. But to determine that, we first need to ask if anyone in the audience is here who wishes to speak to any of these matters. The first appears in the middle of page 3, MARV 2014-4, a zone change request for Kids House. This is a zone change from an R1C single-family residential zone to a P1 professional office zone for property at 1449 and 1451 Bryan Avenue. The staff would ask at this time if anyone is present who wishes to discuss or object to this zone change proposed for Kids House, on Bryan Avenue. Seeing none, this can be our first abbreviated hearing then, Mr. Chairman. The next item appears on the next page of your agenda, the middle of page 4, MARC 2014-5, a zone change by milk and honey daycare and preschool. This is a change from an agricultural urban AU zone to an R3 planned neighborhood residential zone for property at 2700 Old Todd's Road. Again, the staff would ask at this time if anyone is present who wishes to speak to this zone change or object to this zone change proposed on Old Todd's Road. Seeing none, then, Mr. Chairman, this can also be an abbreviated public hearing. The final item that may qualify appears on the bottom of page 5, mostly on page 6. MAR 2014-6, a zone change by the Lexington Vane and Aesthetic Center. This is a change from an R1B single-family residential zone to a P1 professional office zone involving property at 3116 Harrodsburg Road. Again, we would ask at this time if anyone's present who wishes to speak or object to this zone change proposed for Lexington Vane and Aesthetic Center on Harrodsburg Road. Okay. Thank you. We will have a hearing on that in just a minute, but we're glad that you're here, and this will need to have a full hearing, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. But we can take these three in order as they remain on your agenda. The first two being abbreviated. Yes, sir. So page 3, item 2, Kids House Zoning Map Amendment, Kids House Zoning Development Plan, MAR 2014-4. Zone change request, variance report, and a zoning development plan associated with this. And as mentioned, you do have a variance staff report, staff report on variance request on the manila sheet of paper that is before you. Ms. Wade, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Just wait a minute until Mr. Jarman's finished. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Chairman Owens, members of the commission, our first item today is MARV 2014-4, a request by Kids House to rezone property at Bryan Avenue, just a little bit over an acre from a single-family residential zone, to a professional office zone. The subject properties are located on the north side of Bryan Avenue inside of New Circle Road. In this area, the predominant zoning is single-family residential, as you can see by the zoning map on the overhead as well as on our easel here. Also in the vicinity, we see there's B1 zoning both along Bryan Avenue to the west as well as closer to New Circle Road on the other side, south side of Bryan Avenue. And then there's also B3 zoning that is predominant along New Circle Road to the northeast. The subject properties, an aerial view here. Again, this shows the property situated on the north side of Bryan Avenue. To the rear of the subject property is a large detention basin. In addition, there's also an alleyway easement, or not easement, excuse me, right-of-way, but the alley itself no longer is present there. And the detention basin is a public improvement that was completed a few years ago. And in doing that, single-family residential lots and property or houses were removed in order for the detention and drainage to flow from the New Circle Road area underneath Bryan Avenue and then to the south. The subject property is also bound by two single-family homes to the west and then to the east, a church. The daycare center does share parking with the church on a daily basis. They have only four parking spaces on their property. And then to the other side of Bryan Avenue to the south is, again, single-family residential. And I would note in the B3 zoning along New Circle Road, we have many commercial uses, restaurants, gas stations, and in this vicinity, also a drugstore, the Walgreens. Looking at it from the north towards the south, you can see across Bryan Avenue, again, single-family residential along Emerson Drive and Meadow Park. The applicant is asking for a P1 zone in order to maintain the child care center at the subject property. They've had some difficulty with the state agency that's in charge of compliance with local ordinances and convincing them that they are, in fact, compliant with the zoning ordinance. The staff feels that they are, and we have provided in the past a zoning letter to state that. However, for some reason, the state agency doesn't believe that that is enough. So in this case, the applicant has decided to rezone the property in order to, I guess, mitigate that issue. The P1 zone in this location is then requested because a daycare center is a principal use in that zone. The daycare center was established in 1977 in the R1C zone, and at that time it was a conditional use that you could request. Since then, that conditional use is no longer available in our R1C or any of our R1 zones. So it is a legal non-conforming use at this location. And the child care center has maintained the same number of children as a maximum since that time. In terms of the subject property and the comprehensive plan, Bill, if you could show, So the subject property is located within our central sector small area plan boundary, and more specifically within sub area D. That small area plan was adopted by the Planning Commission in April of 2009. The central sector small area plan doesn't make any specific land use or corridor recommendations for Bryan Avenue. However, it does encourage development of neighborhood service nodes, specifically through principle two here, which deals with redevelopment and investment. And goal number one, which encourages commercial and service nodes to offer a variety of products and services within this area. The applicant is contending that the P1 zone is appropriate at this location and the existing R1C zoning is not appropriate, and the staff does agree with that assessment. And there's four reasons that we've listed in our staff report and on the agenda for that. First, the existing use has been on the property for over 35 years and is stable and unlikely to relocate at this point. The child care center is a principal permitted use in the P1 zone, and that will bring the use into complete compliance with local zoning regulations, as requested by their state oversight agency. Third, the child care center, combined with the adjoining church, does create an appropriate transition or step down in land use from the more intense land uses along New Circle Road to the single family within the neighborhood that adjoins the other side of the child care center. And then fourth, the child care center, along with the church along Bryan Avenue's corridor, do create a neighborhood service node for the Castlewood and Meadow Park neighborhoods. And then lastly, the staff also believes that the request is supported by the central sector small area plan that we see here the goal to encourage service nodes within this small area so the staff and the zoning committee when they reviewed it three weeks ago are recommending approval of this zone change there is a variance request that's been submitted as well and we'll have a separate staff report on that thank you any questions from this way thank you Good afternoon. Good afternoon. If you want to continue on, we're on page four. Tracy gave a good description of where this is located. This is ZDP 2014-18 Kids House. This is a final development plan for this zone change since the structure is currently existing and there's no need to create any new additional square footage. the plan was proposed to allow them to continue the daycare use on the property the plan was reviewed the subdivision committee recommended approval with if you look at page four with eight conditions provided that the council approves the zoning you have engineering traffic building inspection forester and environmental quality we do have a couple discussion questions one was directed towards the existing driveway and giving arrows for direction when you review the plan we have what looks like a driveway entering in to get into the daycare it's looks like it's paved to a certain point and then the rest of it's not so we believe that they want to have the direction all traffic in this area. So we had some question about the additional drive. And as Tracy said, there's a variance on the landscape variance. That's the condition number eight. And Bill, Sally will be giving you more information about that. Are there any other questions? Any questions for Ms. Galt? So I'm sure the variance report that I have, I think maybe some, we need some copies. Oh, and look in the books. I got mine earlier. I'm sorry. It should be in tab two if you're not going. In the book under tab two. Ms. Galt, as far as the zoning development plan 7 has been taken care of, is that correct? I'm sorry, excuse me. The zoning development plan condition number 7, as far as the driveway and errors. Correct, we just wanted to verify that the remaining part of the drive is not going to be used. how that's to be determined or I guess blocked off or whatever so it's not used for the daycare. Okay. Is that a resolvable situation? Yes. Okay. Yes. And then number eight, the variance report should take care of that. Mr. Sally is going to present that. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I have an extra report. if a commission member does not have one at your tab. Okay. And thank you for your patience with us in getting this report to you. This item is on the top of page 4. It's item B on your agenda. This is a requested variance for MARV 2014-4, and the request is to reduce the zone-to-zone perimeter screening requirements. Those requirements ordinarily set forth for a buffer area of 15 feet inside a subject property to screen it from residential zones when it is in a non-residential zone. In this case, they have asked for the buffer to be reduced to between roughly 5 and 8 feet around the perimeter and to be relieved from the requirement for additional plantings. From the photo that you saw from Ms. Wade, there is some landscaping material around the subject property, And yesterday we received this exhibit, which is on the overhead, which I believe was distributed to the commission members, showing the applicant's proposal of where to retain the existing buffer. That is primarily along the southwest property line and the northwest property line. And then to augment it in the other two locations along the northeast and north corners of the property, where you see the yellow and the orange shading. In those areas, there would be additional hedge material planted and four trees along the northeast property line. Those are indicated on the overhead. As Ms. Wade also mentioned, this is a use that has been in existence since 1977 when the Board of Adjustment approved it. It has been in an R1C zone that entire time. However, in 1983, our zoning ordinance was amended to no longer allow a freestanding daycare center in any of our single-family residential zones. So with those extensive text amendments that took place in 1983, at that time this property technically became a nonconforming use. The proposal is not to change anything physically on the site, other than to add the additional plantings that you see in this exhibit. The applicant has justified their request by stating that the existing buffer is satisfactory to buffer this property from the church, from the detention basin, and from the one dwelling that abuts it to the southwest. The staff is generally in agreement. We find that this existing landscape material, although not technically compliant with Article 18, is sufficient to buffer the property as it has been for a number of years. So we are in agreement with their request. The Landscape Review Committee is set up by our zoning ordinance in Article 18 to review all proposals for variances to our landscape provisions. This was scheduled to be met or to be discussed at their meeting in March. However, they did not have a quorum. They did have two members present, and there was a discussion about the proposal amongst the staff that was present and the two members of the committee. Those discussions led to two general recommendations from those members. One is that along the frontage that some shade trees ought to be planted in the style of street trees because there is no ordinance provision that street trees be provided here. And in addition, there was a general understanding that this proposal is fine since the use is proposed to continue and there's really no other physical change proposed to the property. However, a variance would not necessarily require landscaping should there be a redevelopment of this property in the future, and those two board members found that somewhat problematic. The staff, in drafting our conditions, have tried to address those two concerns, and I'll go over those with you in just a moment. The staff is recommending approval of the requested landscape variances for the five reasons in our staff report. To summarize those briefly, the first is that granting the variances will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare because no fiscal change or expansion of the existing buildings or parking lot is proposed by the applicant at this time. Secondly, granting the variances will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance requirements because the existing child care center predates our landscaping provisions in the zoning ordinance. Thirdly, the special circumstances that apply to this property that are not generally found in this zone or in other residential properties is that on three sides it's buffered and bordered by non-residential uses and residential only on one side. Fourth, strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship to the applicant because there already exists an adequate screening between the property and the adjacent properties. And then finally, the circumstances surrounding this request are not the result of actions by the applicant, but more so because the rezoning has been requested only as a result of greater compliance with the requirements of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There are six conditions recommended by the staff in approving this variance. The first is provided the property is rezoned P1 as requested by the Urban County Council. Secondly, that the property should be developed and used as depicted on the submitted development plan. Thirdly, that a note be placed on the plan should the Commission grant these variances to document that approval. Fourth, prior to obtaining an occupancy permit, that this use would obtain also a zoning compliance permit from the Division of Planning. The last two conditions are the two I alluded to a moment ago about the discussion at the Landscape Review Committee. The fifth condition will require that five shade trees be planted in the front of the property, hopefully within 10 feet of the sidewalk, over the next five planting seasons to implement the recommendations and discussions that were held. And then finally, that an additional note be placed on the plan stating that should the property redevelop in the future, that the perimeter landscaping requirements would be reviewed at that time. I would be glad to answer any questions from the commission about our report or about the landscape variances that are proposed from you this afternoon. Any questions for Mr. Sally? Yes, sir. The shade trees along the front? Yes. What's the theory with that? Because this is, I don't want to call it a commercial use, but it would seem to me that we may not want to screen that out. My, you're right, a child care center, you do want to have good line of sight to the outdoor play area that is really predominating the development plan. My understanding, I was not present at the landscape committee meeting, but my understanding was there was some concern from the two members about the need for additional tree canopy. In a P1 zone, it's required to have 20% tree canopy, and by granting a variance like this, it would probably not attain that figure. So I think it was seen as having street trees in addition to what would be required in any kind of new professional office development where child care centers could be in order to try and bump up a little better the compliance with the tree canopy requirements. That's my understanding of their discussion. Certainly the commission, if you do not agree with that condition, you do not have to approve it under your action. You can delete that condition if you wish. Any other questions for Mr. Salley? Thank you, Mr. Selle. Thank you. Applicant in agreement with everything? Yes. My name is Bill Bausch, and I represent the owner as well as the tenant and director of the child care center. And we do agree that we would comply with all of the conditions, but would ask that you look at the line of sight issues on this road, particularly in a transition zone with children coming and going, and the ability or inability for the people that are taking these children to and from the buses, which is the predominant use of the drive. They load and unload. And also the employees, because of the shifts that are run here, they come in the dark and they leave in the dark, and they're predominantly individuals, both men and women, but predominantly women, are working in this area and are going to need the protection of not having someone lurking behind a tree. However, we agree with this. We will work certainly to do that, but would ask you to consider the number of trees. If there could be spacing instead of five, if there could be two or three to allow a line of sight, there's also a bus stop that is there. And it is in a transition neighborhood that is getting more and more traffic with the drugstore that's at the corner, and it is converting to more commercial use. and just for the safety of the children and any employees, if you could take a look at that. But if that's not your desire, we will agree that we will do those and certainly would comply. And with that, we have no objection. Thank you, Mr. Pellas. Mr. Penn, you've got a question. Yes, for the applicant. Do you have a reciprocal parking agreement with the church, and is that where your staff is going to park? Staff as well as children that are being dropped off, it's a rather unusual setup in the sense that there's about 36 inches to 48 inches between the parking spaces, and they walk across to the daycare center, and so they simply walk back and forth. But there is a reciprocal agreement. it was placed as a part of the application package. And so that's in writing and gives you comfort that you'll be able to keep those? Yes. Yes, sir. And there are 17 spots delineated, and they are set forth in the lease agreement. And again, I thought that was submitted with part of the package. That's fine. And when those buses come in to drop those kids off, do they turn around and come back out the same way, or do they go all the way around? They come out the same way. Okay. There's enough space. And when we say buses, we're talking vans. I know. Twelve passenger vans. They pull in and then they turn back around. And come back out the same way. Yes, sir. Thank you. Ms. Blanton, question? Is your preference just to remove the tree requirement altogether or reduce it? What do you think would be best in terms of safety? You know, with a one-inch caliper, it's not going to be that onerous. I just, you know, as they grow, hopefully the leaves and the line of sight, as those trees evolve, they'll still have a line of sight. So, but at this stage, I would just ask for a reduction in the sense that the spacing, particularly if you put five and you look at the lot, And then you look at the way that the trees will impact the line of sight for the buses or the vans coming in and out, particularly backing up the one from the driveway to allow a better line of sight for both traffic on Bryan Avenue as well as ingress and egress. three, and we can push them further, which would be to the southeast corner. We would still supply canopy, but we would not impact ingress and egress, nor as the children are loading and unloading for the buses. So I would request three. Mr. Pausch, I had to smile when you mentioned the one-inch caliper trees. Your concern is just the proposed street trees, the five street trees? Yes, sir. Okay. Everything else, and it's only, again, for people, pedestrians coming down the street, children, someplace for someone to look, as well as ingress and egress out of the drive. And you're asking for three or four? Yes, sir. As opposed to five? Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the afternoon? If not, anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? Seeing none, if there's no further questions from the Planning Commission, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motions. Depending on the wishes of the Commission, we're looking at three motions, one for the zone change, one for the variance, and then one for the development plan. Ms. Blanton. Move approval of MARB 2014-4 Kids House for the reasons outlined by staff. Seconded. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of MARC 2014-5. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Continue. Do you want the variance next? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Move approval of the variance for the reasons outlined by staff and the six conditions, changing condition number five from five shade trees to three shade trees. Second. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the variance as per the staff report making the one change on number five from five shade trees to three shade trees. If there's no questions on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And the development plan? Move approval of ZDP 2014-18 Kids House with the eight conditions outlined by staff. Okay. I think we could delete number eight, change in number seven to resolve if that's okay with you, Carla? Yes. Okay. So we've got a motion for approval of ZDP 2014-18 with now seven conditions, deleting number eight and then changing number seven to resolve. Motion was seconded by Ms. Mundy. If there's no discussion on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Next. would be the milk and honey daycare preschool zone map amendment marc 2014-4 and stephanie i might have put the wrong number down when i was referencing the last one I don't remember if I said 2014-4 or 2014-5 however we're on page four it's item number three milk and honey daycare preschool zone map amendment and covenant church incorporated the pine zoning development plan marc 2014-5 we have zone change conditional use and a zoning development plan we do have revisions on the development plan which is on a pink sheet before you miss white I believe it's behind tab 3 in your notebooks if you're all there still using this this is a request to rezone the property at 2700 Old Todd's Road from an agricultural urban zone to a planned neighborhood residential zone which is our R3 zone the property is approximately five and a half acres it's It's located on the south side of Old Todd's Road, generally between North Mount Tabor Road and Palumbo Drive. And then a few other cross streets that come in from the north are Woodhill Drive and Chelsea Woods Drive and the subject property between those two. The property is bound on all sides by residential zoning, and they're, again, requesting a residential zone. To the north and south is R1T in that kind of yellowish-pink color. To the east is the R3 zoning. To the west, R4. The subject property, again, on the south side of Todd's Road, and this picture shows a little bit more context pulled out with Palumbo to the east and a few of the uses in that area. And then looking at it from the north towards the south, again, the subject property, the church, currently a church and daycare located in the middle of the property with parking on both sides. And the applicant is requesting the rezoning in order for the daycare to remain and expand at this location. The church is wishing to sell the property to the daycare center that's already there. The daycare has been operating on the second or the basement floor of the facility for a number of years. And at this point, they wish to remodel the main floor and occupy it for a daycare as well, or for the daycare as well, and then hopefully to expand and serve more children in the area. The Board of Adjustment approved this. I guess I didn't make a note. I'm sure Jimmy will cover that in what year that was approved, the 90s? The mid-90s. The applicant is proposing a residential zone at this location, I believe, because it's consistent with the surrounding zoning. In addition, it does permit, as a conditional use, the daycare center as well as churches and other uses, community centers in this area. So they would be able to maintain the commercial use at that location. And just for clarification, the agricultural urban zone only permits a child care center when it's accessory to a church or, yeah, I believe just a church or school. So the proposed R3 zone, even though no residential use is planned at this time, the staff believes it's compatible with the surrounding residential zoning, and the site cannot be connected to any of the surrounding development because there are no stub streets that exist currently. but the parcel is large enough to accommodate to between 25 and 50 dwelling units if the child care center ever ceases to exist at this location or if a portion of the parcel were to be sold for development, the staff believes residential would be appropriate at this location. In addition, the R3 zone, as I mentioned, accommodates conditional uses such as child care centers, churches, community centers, There's nursing homes and assisted living facilities, which could all feasibly be located in this area. And additionally, there is a benefit to the neighborhood because the daycare center does provide a necessary service for this portion of the county. One thing I didn't mention in terms of the agricultural urban zoning that is typically considered a holding zone until more urban development is possible at a location. and specifically the zoning ordinance in 8.4a mentions that it is a placeholder until appropriate urban services are available to serve the land, and all urban services are currently available at this location. So the staff and the zoning committee both recommended approval of the requested zone change because the existing AU zone is no longer appropriate, and the requested R3 zone is appropriate at this location. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this. Zone change. Any questions for Ms. Wade on the zone change? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin, good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the final development plan that's associated with this zone change is located as item C on page 5 of your agenda, ZDP 2014-19. Staff has also provided you with the pink handout that are revised conditions on this plan. You can see that the property is located along Old Todd's Road. This is the frontage. Here is the existing driveway access into the parking area. This is the church structure daycare that you have here. It is 11,556 square feet, including the basement. There are 79 parking areas. This is the play area in this location that is over 5,000 square feet. There's also a play area adjoining the building at this location. This area is the detention area that you can see on the property. Now, this is a revised plan that we received from the applicant, which is why, of course, you have the revised handouts. You can see that we have recommended approval of the plan subject to your standard final development plan sign-offs, engineering, traffic, building inspection, addressing, tree preservation approval by the urban forester, bike ped, division of fire, and solid waste. And then, of course, documentation of the division of water quality's approval of the Capacity Assurance Program. They are increasing and tend to increase the enrollment of this facility. They've cleaned up the plan nicely. They still need to dimension the sidewalks and the apron. They need to add the correct tree preservation plan information. And you can see, if I could direct your attention, item 13. denote that all improvements to Todd's Road shall be completed prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first floor. That condition arose from the submission of the revised plan that you see before you. They submitted a revised plan, and on the cross-section, they showed the improvements. And this was an item of much discussion between staff and the applicant, as I'm sure the committee members are aware, because, as always, when we get a redevelopment, a zone change on a piece of property, we like to secure public improvements. And certainly street improvements are important, and the impact of the growth of this facility was of concern. Right before this meeting, staff had a discussion with the applicant. The applicant was not aware of the condition that you see before you that all these be built prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. They are concerned. with their ability to do that. And that was part of the discussion that we'd had with the applicant before was to what extent public improvement should be required. Staff took the opportunity in talking with the applicant. We've also talked with our traffic engineering folks. And we would recommend at a minimum that that condition that you see denote that a sidewalk be provided along the frontage of old Todd's Road prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first floor. Staff's concerned that at a minimum we need to provide a pedestrian facility for people that would utilize the daycare, people that would work at the daycare, and certainly we think that's important. We do believe that the curb and gutter could be deferred to future development of this property, And I would point out that you have a condition on your zone change that states that should they exceed 200 children, they will have to return to the Board of Adjustment. If that happened, of course, curb and gutter and other improvements could be reviewed at that time as well. So staff believes that provides the public with a level of comfort to help ensure that appropriate public improvements are achieved. But again, we would stress that a minimum, we believe a sidewalk should be provided. The applicant, and they may elaborate on this, has stated they're a little bit concerned about the placement of the sidewalk due to some topography. Staff is sure that that could be resolved and the placement of that sidewalk could be worked out. If it's adjacent to the right-of-way, for instance, an easement could be provided. I mean, that's not unusual and has been done in other circumstances. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions, Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am. I went out and looked at the property because I'm through there quite a bit, and it appears to me that it's pretty steep. There's a lot of growth in that in there. Is that going to cause a hardship or a difficulty for them to be able to get this in? Sidewalk, curb and gutter, and or just sidewalk? Well, again, staff believes a sidewalk can be provided, And I think in conversations with the applicant, they can do a sidewalk. They may have to adjust the location due to the conditions that you just described. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Pym? Mr. Martin, when this land is zoned, what they're asking for, could they subdivide off to the left of the church as I face it? This land could be subdivided, yes. And at that time, we would discuss public improvements under your subdivision requirements. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Cravens. Yeah. Tom, is that a state road, Todd's Road? It was once upon a time. I honestly don't know if they've given that to us or not. Our traffic folks may know. I hate to put them on the spot. But that status tends to change in our community at times. So, I mean, wouldn't it be up to the state? Would the state have a say-so? if it were a state road? They could, along if it's in their right-of-way. We believe, again, that if it can't go in the right-of-way, that a facility could be provided in an easement adjacent to the right-of-way. We just did that recently on Winchester Road with that townhouse development, you may recall, the apartment. Mr. Martin, we're talking about sidewalks, future improvements as far as curb and gutter. should there be any sort of note on this or condition to reflect that need at a later date? I believe that would be appropriate, yes, sir. If the commission, we could denote that future development or subdivision of the property, then we would want to review the need for additional improvements. Okay. And that would... Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Emmons. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, especially Mr. Commission Member Smith. I told him at the beginning of this he thought he was getting away from me, but I laughed evilly and told him I was getting up here to present something anyway. I am presenting the conditional use report for the daycare and child care center for this property. It is actually quite a simple report to make. About 30 years ago in 1984, a church was approved on this site. About 20 years ago in 1994, the daycare in association with the church was also approved. The staff relied heavily on that 1994 approval, considering that this child care center has been operating at this location for 20 years with really no problem. The staff went through and looked at this particular site. The site is about six acres. There is plenty of room for this to grow. In addition to the church itself, this site could handle well over 200 children, just based off of the existing physical characteristics of the amount of fenced-in play area that they have, the amount of parking that they have. When the Board of Adjustment approved this in 1994, they approved it with some fairly typical conditions, and those being hours of operation and parking and driveways. The staff has primarily updated those recommendations, which show up as your eight listed conditions for approval. The only substantive change that the staff made to the 1994 approval was that at that time, the board limited this daycare to a number of no more than 60 children at this daycare. We can't find any reason other than that's what was being requested at that time, and that is a fairly typical standard practice of the Board of Adjustment. The applicants have said that they wish to grow their enrollment to 120 to 150 children. Noting that the site can easily handle over 200, the staff is recommending a new condition that the child care center be limited to no more than 200 children, or as the state further regulates it based on the square footage of the building. Should the applicant wish to have more than 200 children, it would be required to come back to the Board of Adjustment. This would give the applicant ample room to grow and accommodate any future development of this six-acre site without the need for additional approval of the conditional use. Staff is recommending approval. If you have any questions about the conditional use, I would be happy to try and answer those. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you. Applicant, an agreement? Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioners and Mr. Chairman. My name is Nathan Billings. On behalf of the applicant with me is Rick Moore, as well as owners of the applicant Milk and Honey Daycare. We are in agreement with everything staff has had to say today with respect to the zone change, the development plan, and the conditional use, with exception of the improvements to Todd Road sidewalk issue. Remember at the committee meeting, there was a discussion about some of those improvements, and probably as a result of my poor communications with Mr. Moore, the surveyor, those improvements were ended up putting on the revised plan that was submitted last week. More than his fault, it was probably mine that I didn't clearly communicate because he wasn't at the committee meeting what staff was expecting. Our position has been that with respect to the improvements on Todd's Road, that the daycare's daily functioning will not change at all. It will hopefully grow in size in the future, but that it is not a pedestrian-accessible site currently. If you look on the site currently, there is only a sidewalk that comes in from an area that was parceled off. I forget the date, but about a decade ago when R3 townhouse community is here. The Chelsea Woods subdivision across the street has no street improvements whatsoever. While the driveway is here, these are the back of all the lots of Chelsea Woods. There is no curb. There is no gutter. There is no sidewalk. And likely there never will be because of the way it was developed. This continues down here. It's where the Chelsea subdivision ends about right here. This right here is a single-family home currently. It does not have a sidewalk. You go down about three lots, and then there's a sidewalk sort of on the corner there. And you can see that. I'm getting my directions confused. The sidewalk ends about right here and about right here. We think that sidewalk and road improvements are appropriate for this site, but they would be appropriate if either this site was redeveloped. I think Mr. Penn asked a question about subdivided for the future, or if the use of this would change for something other than the daycare. Primarily, it's a vehicle drop-off, turn around, and leave. For that reason, we certainly appreciate all the work that staff has done with Mr. Moore on the plan, but we would submit that a note on the plat would be the appropriate way to resolve that all the road improvements to Todd's Road, which includes the sidewalk, should be done in the future. If, in fact, the commission believes that the sidewalk should be done now, We think it can be worked out with staff that would be outside the 30-foot right-of-way. There is a water retention basin in this area here, and there is a – I don't know the elevation, but there is a fairly significant slope there. I mean, construction of it won't be a problem. It can be done, but it will – it's just not going to be a pedestrian-friendly area. I mean, I think it's about a 15- or 20-foot drop from the highest to the lowest point. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Questions? Mr. Pym? Mr. Billings, on the 200 children limit, are you okay with that? We'd have to come back if it got bigger than that? Absolutely. That's fine with us. So that could be a note we could put on the... Absolutely. We're fine with every other condition staff has recommended, Mr. Penn. Thank you. Ms. Mundy? You said it's a drop-off facility, so there are not any children that are ever traversing along that road that would need access by sidewalk? Are there any kids... Or a safety issue? No. If you want to come up and explain that. I'm Jackie Pitterd. Address? Home address? Just give the address the property. 2700 Old Todd's Road. That's our question. Okay. And I'm sorry, restate your questions. I'll make sure I answer you correctly. There are not ever instances of children and parents traversing along that street to have access to your facility? Never, never. It's never occurred in the years we've been there. Even the Fayette County school bus pulls into our property right up to the door. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Berkeley? I think I may have been the one that brought up the thing about the sidewalk before, but I've been out and looked at the site as well, and I think placement of the sidewalk is going to be very difficult. Because until such time that the road would be redesigned, you don't know how much slope they're going to take out and how far they have to go back. And I would just hate to see them do this and then two years from now we come back and redo the road and tear it all out. So that's just my thoughts. I'm kind of switching directions a little bit. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Billings at this time? Thank you, Mr. Billings. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? Seeing none, if there's no further discussion from the Planning Commission, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. I would say I find it interesting that on the east side that there is a residential development and, you know, I'd be curious to think that someone from there might be willing to walk their child to this development. I'm always in favor of getting the improvements whenever possible. So with that said, I'll leave it up to the commission. and as I said, open it up for any discussion and or motions. We would need zone change, conditional use, and development plan. Mr. Berkley? Would everybody maybe be agreeable to leave the condition or put the condition on the plan to require this look-see at the improvements if it were to be redeveloped versus doing it right now? I think you're in discussion mode, so yes, ma'am. Could we also add and or if those improvements that you mentioned about are made at Old Todd's Road that they would put in a sidewalk? I mean, I agree with your point that we don't want them to have to do it twice, But I also think if a sidewalk were in there, maybe people would walk to it. The other sections of Todd's that I'm familiar with that have been redone, usually when they make it an urban section, they'll put sidewalks in as a part of the project. So I think that will be taken care of that way. Other discussion? Mike? Yes, sir. If we made number 14, should it probably be redeveloped, we'd have to look at the sidewalks. And then what would you do with the 200 kids? Would you put that on as a 15, or would you say a note, or how would you handle that? I'd look to the staff on that as far as the occupancy with 200. Mr. Emmons or Mr. Martin? Chairman, condition number eight already has a limit of 200 in it. So we have that covered on the condition. Exactly. More than 200 kids would re-trigger this use as a conditional use to be approved. Okay. I got you. I was looking on the yellow sheet. In simplicity's sake, I would suggest offering a motion for the zone change first, and we'll work our way through the other two. You ready for a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MARC 2014-5 for the reason provided by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of MARC-2014-5. if there's no discussions please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes now for the conditional use right i move approval of the conditional use with the eight conditions as provided by staff thank you do we have a second second motion's been made and seconded for approval of the conditional use marc 2014-5 please vote when comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Now we're down to the revised staff recommendations on ZDP 2014-19. And it seems like the discussion centers around number 13. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2014-19 with the revised conditions as provided on the pink shift with number 13, should property be redeveloped? No, 13 would be the compliance prior to the issue, so the occupancy permit. Number 14 is that the sidewalks would be rediscussed at the property redeveloped. So you're asking the number? No, I left 13 alone, added 14. where would you like to put it 13 okay all right we'll just add it on to 13 all improvements on old tod road shall be completed prior to issues of the oxy permit you'd have to change that all improvements on old tod road would be revisited upon additional redevelopment of property Is that what you want to say? Okay. Mr. Sally, are you working on a statement for that? Yes, sir. I think we have that. We have that. I thought you were writing. I have down is to note that improvements to Old Tides Road shall be revisited upon any redevelopment of the subject property. That would be change in number 13. Okay. If you would, read that one more time. Denote that improvements to Old Tides Road shall be revisited upon any redevelopment proposed for the subject property. Mr. Penn? That's correct. That will go. Okay. We have a motion with 13 conditions, mostly off the pink sheet, changing number 13 to as Mr. Sally read. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion has been made in second and for approval of ZDP 2014-19 with revised 13 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. mr mr king mr chairman i'm aware that we have some folks here that may be needed for testimony on item number two under zoning ordinance text amendments i don't believe this will take very long but i would ask if the commission would consider taking things out of order and dealing with the zota 2014-2 at this time. If there's no objection from the Planning Commission, we ask to take one item out of order, which would take us to page 7, page 2, Zota 2014-2, amendments to Articles 817, 818, and 819, and Articles 27 to implement design excellence. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. This item appears on the top of page 7, and it's in, I believe, tab 6 of your notebooks? Yes. Okay. That includes both the staff's written report as well as the alternative text that the staff prepared. This is an amendment to parts of Article 8 for the downtown business zones and then all of Article 27. Article 27 is currently the courthouse area design overlay zone, and the proposed text amendment would be to modify that to make it become the Downtown Area Design Excellence Board as a title for that article. The Design Excellence Task Force was originally established. Excuse me, I'm going to go ahead and put this board up for the Design Excellence Boundary. It includes the three downtown business zones. You'll note B2 is our core downtown business zone. B2B is the Lexington Center business around Rupp Arena. and then B2A is around the edges here, here. And we do have a few non-contiguous B2A zones, but generally that's going to be the design excellence boundary. The current courthouse boundary is much smaller and concentrated in the center of downtown. The design excellence task force was established in the summer of 2010 with the goal of creating a way for Fayette County to have better design within the downtown and other business areas. The first task force has met numerous times to discuss these options for achieving the goal of design excellence, and although other approaches were considered, the task force has determined that the preferred approach is to utilize these three downtown business zones as the area by which design excellence is, at this point, to be bound to. So this zoning would be modified, the three downtown business zones modified, and then create the downtown excellence board and the rules by which they are to review projects within this area. the approach also requires obviously dissolving the existing courthouse area overlay zone because it would be a duplication of efforts in adopting these changes the council will also consider staffing changes possibly new initiatives and also adopting design guidelines the design guidelines are in a draft format currently and the staff did email those to the Planning Commission I believe yesterday as a reference document so they are well underway and the design excellence group has reviewed them numerous times in their in their working group the and the committee the work group task force excuse me is also considering new incentives that they're proposing to the council and at this point those are not well i think they've been discussed but i don't know that they're hard and fast at this point so the proposed text amendment to the ordinance is only a piece of the larger approach design to design excellence and as the planning commission reviews this and forwards it to the council the council will then hold on to the text amendment until the other pieces are ready to then move forward collectively so at that point they'll be waiting for the design guidelines and the incentives to be grouped with this text change as a package in general the text amendment does establish the process for review of redevelopment rehabilitation demolition of structures within the downtown area through article 27 and in in Article 8, modifies the lot, yard, and height requirements and special provision sections of each of the downtown zones. Within that, it also notes that in any case where an H1 overlay exists on top of any B2 zone, the H1 design guidelines would take precedent over any design guidelines presented for just the B2 zones. the b2a zone i'll ask you to look to the staff alternative text in the b2a zone there were two additional changes made that didn't reflect in our b2 or b2b zones specifically the height of the buildings will be allowed to go to 12 stories currently the text limits it to three stories or up to 10 with planning commission approval so this simplifies the requirement there they wouldn't need no one would need to come to the Planning Commission for approval to go to 10 stories the 12-story provision would be permitted by the design excellence board so it kind of simplifies that in addition off-street parking is reduced in the B to a zone as well in turning to the article 27 changes the new design excellence board will have seven members rather than five for the current courthouse board and it would be representative of design professionals also residents within the boundary at least one a business owner within the zoning boundary a real estate professional or developer within the zoning boundary and a member at large the new design excellence board will have the authority to review applications as well for the redevelopment and demolition, utilizing the yet-to-be-adopted design guidelines and standards. One of the specific improvements that is hoped for with the changes to Article 27 is to give more staff approval rather than focusing on the board approval of all the applications. So these changes do first list the staff criteria by which improvements or things can be evaluated, and then if you are beyond the scope of a small project that the staff can evaluate, then it would go to the board. Other changes to Article 27 include any appeal to board action will be made to Fayette Circuit Court rather than the Planning Commission. Enforcement language will be updated to assign design excellence officer the responsibility of reviewing construction and determining compliance. And then lastly, there was clarification added that economic hardship cannot be claimed based on deferred maintenance of historic buildings. After reviewing the text forwarded from the council, the staff found that some of the areas that should have been underlined were not. And for clarification, we took the time to identify those so that the text, as it moved forward, was clear and concise to anybody who was trying to compare what existing Article 27 was to what the future Article 27 will read like. So the staff and the zoning committee reviewed this three weeks ago and recommended approval of the text changes. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Mr. Penn, question? Yeah, Ms. Wade, I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but it's all right. As I look through this, do BOAR appeals that are in that area still come to us, or do they go to the Design Excellence Committee? I think it would depend on what that person was appealing. If they're appealing, well, I guess since H-1 would override, they would go to the a BOAR decision would happen rather than the design area excellence board because the H1 would be in effect rather than the design excellence so we would still hear we'd still hear those appeals yes couldn't fix that today for some reason I thought that was coming other questions so this This way you do have some staff alternatives here. Yeah, we presented the staff alternative, which in essence is a very minor change from the initiated text, even though there's a lot of yellow identified. In a lot of cases, it was missing underlining. Or just to clarify, we were rearranging something, and it wasn't very clear. So to make it clear, we just deleted everything and included the new text. there were two small changes that the brandy noted for me earlier today that they would like to ask the Planning Commission to consider adding or changing to the staff alternative I'm going to put those two on the overhead the first one it occurs on page 27-5 In about the middle of the page, 27.5a, this is where the text begins to talk about when an authorization permit would be required. and 27.5a, the way the draft came from the council initiation and the staff's yellow there was just that wasn't identified as a deletion and an addition, so it was an underlining issue. But Brandy indicated that, and she's correct, we should keep the words any part of and not add 25% or more, And that's just for clarification. In this section, we're saying authorization permits should be required when there's an exterior change, demolition, and it's demolition at all. And the next two sections actually identify that 25% break when there's demolition or change of more than 25%. It's large scale. If it's less than 25%, it's the small-scale staff approval. So the next two sections actually break out that 25% or more clarification, and so it's not needed in this section. So that's the first change that we'd like the commission to consider. Can you put the second one? The second one occurs on page 8, kind of about a third of the way down. under the topic multi-phase board review, and this is really more of a clarification, an addition that will help as you're reading through it know in a multi-phase board review that would be required for large-scale projects in dealing with new construction. This is a clarification that above in 27.5C number three, it actually identifies what kind of defines what that is. So for the reader, if you had any question as to what a large-scale new construction project really meant, it would direct you to a section above. So this is just a small addition. Any questions from Ms. Wade? Ms. Blanton? Any exterior change, so would that be painting, new windows? Not painting. I think it does specifically say, and I don't know which section it is, but it does specifically say this does not include painting. Painting the exterior of a building that was already painted before. New paint, I think, might be under consideration. Is that true, Chris? I see it. Sorry. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak? Randy or Mr. Fugut? Either one? No? All is good. Very good. And before we end here, the Fayette Alliance did provide a letter, which I believe also we distributed to the Planning Commission. yesterday, and I'll just enter that into the record of support for the text amendment. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this? Any other questions from commission members? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Mr. Wilson Mr. Chairman I'd like to move that we approve ZOTA 2014-2 amendments to the articles 817, 818, 8 and 819 plus article 27 as the implement design excellence and all the reasons provided by staff. That would be with staff alternative language. With the staff alternative language. Thank you. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval with staff alternative language, seconded by Mrs. Plumlee. If there's no discussion on the motion, I'll... Yes, ma'am. Okay, there were two other changes, I think, notified by Brandy, so we want to put those in as well. Okay. It's okay with Mrs. Plumlee. as far as the second? True. Yes. Okay, so that includes two changes from Brandy. DDA. Okay, so we still have a motion for approval with staff alternative and the two changes by Brandy. Seconded. If there's no other discussion, I'll entertain a motion. Entertain the vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank everyone for their indulgence as far as taking an item out of order so that others could go to other meetings. We'll return to page 5, item 4, Lexington Vane and Aesthetic Center Zoning Map Amendment and Indian Hills Subdivision Lexington Vane Center PLLC. It's MAR 2004-6. And we do have a revised staff recommendation for the zone map amendment, which is on a white sheet before you. We also have revisions on a yellow sheet for the zoning development plan. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This item appears on page 5 of your meeting agenda, item number 4, MAR 2014-6. This is a zone change that's been requested by the Lexington Vane and Aesthetic Center, PLLC. This is a requested zone change from an R1B single-family residential zone to a requested professional office, P1 zone. The zone change involves slightly more than one gross acre of property, and the property has an address of 3116 Harrodsburg Road. We placed on the overhead an aerial photograph of that address, and I have some other photographs that I'll review with you in just a moment. The subject property is located a very short distance away from the fire station that is probably the predominant land use in the area at the corner of Arrowhead Drive and Harrodsburg Road. This is a T-intersection that is not signalized. Here is the fire station, and the subject property is separated from that facility by a Masonic Lodge at this location. It's bounded by the Indian Hills Subdivision to the east, by the Rabbit Run Subdivision to the south, and is directly across Harrodsburg Road from the Harrods Hills Subdivision across Harrodsburg Road. The staff did distribute two items to you. One is a couple of excerpts from the Indian Hills Small Area Plan, and I think Mr. Chairman mentioned that there is a revised staff recommendation on this own change. It is to the second of four findings proposed by the staff, and it is an addition of an additional phrase at the very end of that second finding. I would like to spend just a moment and go over the other aerial photographs so that we can orient you fully to this location and to the subject property. First is an oblique aerial from the south as well. Again, the property fronts along Harrodsburg Road and more specifically along a service road that truncates at this location here. This is the old highway which existed and was used prior to the 1960s when the roadway was widened in this particular area. The subject property is here. The Masonic Lodge it's adjacent to is here. And the fire station occupies the corner of Arrowhead and Harrodsburg Road. There is an access to the subject property at this location that crosses the median of Harrodsburg Road and then also crosses from that facility across the service road to a driveway situated with the single-family residence that's on the subject property. As you'll see from the development plan, that residence is proposed to be removed, and this proposal is involving the replacement of that structure with about a 5,400-square-foot medical office building. This is a view of the exact same property, a little closer, looking also from the south, and in this photograph you can see much better the existing access to Harrodsburg Road and the service road that fronts the property. There are a number of mature trees along that frontage, as well as separating this property from the Rabbit Run subdivision along this line and the Masonic Lodge property, primarily to the rear, much more than the side here. The surrounding zoning to the property is R1B in Indian Hills, R3 in Rabbit Run, R1C across the road in Herod's Hills. I believe I may have said Harrods Hills. This should have been Indian Hills. It's R1B. Harrodsburg Road, this location. On the overhead now is one of the two handouts the staff made. The future of this area was extensively considered a little more than a decade ago as part of the Indian Hills Small Area Plan. That small area plan predominantly looked at the properties that front the Harrodsburg Road service road between the subject property. is sending to the northeast beyond Arrowhead Drive as far as corporate drive. And what you see on the overhead are all of those properties that were reviewed by the small area plan here. The small area plan found that the predominant land uses in this area were either professional office, professional services, or for residential by and large. There were other land uses, of course, since there are commercial uses in Beaumont. and other public uses like the public library that's not very far across Harrodsburg Road from this location. But those two land uses tended to be the dominant ones within about a half a mile of this particular location. The plan recommended that the properties along the service road convert to professional services in the future. that includes the subject property, three other residences here, one of which at the opposite corner of Arrowhead has converted to a branch bank at that corner, and that the three office uses along the frontage at Corporate Drive also remain in professional service use in the future. This plan was vetted with neighbors of the area, of course, and was adopted in 2003 as an amendment to, at the time, the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner's justification for the present day zone change of the subject property from R1B to P1 is that it is in agreement with the new 2013 Comprehensive Plan. In their justification, they cited goals and objectives from the plan that were furthered, and one of those being that there's text specifically in the plan that calls for the growth of medical and health-related land uses in our community because that is such an important and vital part of our region's economy. The staff in our report also cited two other statements in the comprehensive plan, being on page 40 and page 73, which is a statement that there should be good paying jobs in close proximity to our existing neighborhoods and also that there's a need for jobs with higher wages in the plan as well. The staff concludes that the applicant's justification is correct and we agree with that justification that this is a zone change that is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. And as we discussed with the zoning committee three weeks ago at the time, we considered recommending conditional zoning for this zone change as well. On the back of this sheet that was distributed, there is one special consideration that was especially pertinent to this zone change in the staff's review, and that was three of ten listed. That one called for some specific land use buffers be developed and implemented at the time that these properties along the Harrodsburg Road frontage convert to non-residential use. Specifically, there was a strong recommendation for a minimum of a 15-foot buffer for the subject property and the other properties along the frontage buffering to the residential uses adjacent. Three weeks ago, that was not proposed along the side of the property that abuts Rabbit Run. As you'll see from the development plan now, that is part of a revised development plan that those of you on the commission have not seen as of yet. To the rear, there always has been a proposed 15-foot buffer as part of the applicant's development plan. Those trees along the rabbit run line are of mixed species, including a very significant cherry tree that was concerned to the staff three weeks ago. Along the rear line, very nice trees, but some of those, most of those, I believe, are ash trees. So they may be susceptible to the ash borer that has invaded our county and our region. your zoning committee and your staff have recommended approval of this rezoning for the four reasons that appear on the agenda again we have offered a slight modification to the end of the second finding those findings are first that the requested p1 zone for the subject property is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan and with the land use recommendations of the indian Hills small area plan which preceded it. Secondly, the 2013 goals and objectives support infill and redevelopment in all areas of the urban service area which this proposal also supports. Thirdly, the text of the 2013 plan encourages site redevelopments throughout the community and mentions employment land uses, near residential areas, good paying jobs, and the future growth in our medical related businesses and services. And finally, our recommendation is made subject to your review and the approval of the zoning development plan that will be presented to you in just a moment. Before that is done, though, I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our report to you, about this application, or about our revised finding to number two of the four we've proposed. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Salley? No? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ms. Galt. Good afternoon again. This plan is on page six of our agenda, but as Bill presented, we do have revised staff conditions on a yellow sheet. This is ZDP 2014-17 Indian Hills Unit 1. The plan was approved. This is a preliminary development plan to show the design layout for the proposed rezoning of the property. This bill presented to you, this is located off of Harrodsburg Road. To the front, the service road. They have proposed the driveway in the same area as the driveway is currently, but they're asking for another driveway in the building to be located closer to the north side of the property. The 15-foot landscape buffer that Bill spoke of as far as the Indian Hills small area plan runs down this property line and along the back side of the property. So everything is within that property line. The proposal for the medical office was made and they, let me start. The subdivision committee recommended approval with 10 conditions and since then we received an amended development plan to revise and showing that 15 foot landscape buffer. With doing that, we were able to resolve and delete three conditions off of the sheet with pulling the dumpster out of the tree line and outside that 15-foot buffer. Taking with that 15-foot buffer and moving the drive also allows for the roots not to be impacted. And then condition number 10 was to have this 15-foot buffer put along the property line. We do still have one condition. It's numbered eight, but it should be seven. It says to note that the tree canopy requirements relative to the number of ash trees shall be addressed at the time of final development plan. Bill had spoke about several ash trees. There are numerous ash trees that are all along this tree line. With that, the staff can now recommend approval also if there's any questions. Thank you, Mrs. Scott. Questions? No? Thank you. Okay. Applicant? Mr. Murphy? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing Lexington Vain and Aesthetic Center. With me today is Dr. Basha, who's on the second row on your left, who's the owner of Lexington Vane and Aesthetic Center. Eli Mashney, who's a real estate broker involved. And Roger Ladenberger from Wheaton Ladenberger, our designer. And Chaz Height, his professional planner, who assists me in preparing these cases. We are requesting his own change to P1 for just over one gross acre at 3116 Harrodsburg Road. The, we do agree with all the staff recommendations of approval. We agree with all the conditions on the development plan. We have been working with Gary Warner, the enforcement director for Division of Solid Waste regarding our dumpster. You can see on this plan there is a dumpster location near the front of the property. Here's the frontage road. There's a dumpster location. We had pointed out to him that this doesn't really generate a lot of trash or waste. We didn't think a dumpster was needed. We thought it would be better for us and for the area not to have a dumpster. He has partially agreed. Let me put this up here. So I emailed back and forth to Mr. Warner today, and the top is where it says, I made a change, that is Mr. Warner making a change to my proposed language, he agreed to a note that said that the pad for the dumpster will be constructed, but a dumpster shall not be required so long as the property does not exceed two 90-gallon roll cart containers, those are Herbys, if trash volumes exceed this amount, a dumpster would be required on that. So that way we can do this without a dumpster, although he is assured that if one is ever needed, he's especially concerned if this were sold sometime in the future to general office use that might generate more trash that a dumpster would be needed. So he has the location right there with the pad so that we can use a dumpster if needed. But I appreciate him working with us on that. And I would point out that that came up because the other uses up the road next door to us is the Masonic Lodge. They use Herbie's. The fire department uses Herbie's. And the bank, United Bank at the corner of Arrowhead and Harrisburg also uses Herbie's. So they have a Herbie truck going down this service road now anyway on that. As I said, we are on the service road. If you could go back to the slide that was just before that to show we are the only residential use on the service road. And as Mr. Sully mentioned, the service road is the old Harrodsburg road. You can see going down from here is the corner of Arrowhead, Harrodsburg, this is the fire station. This is the Masonic Lodge and this is the last house on the service road. The service road is truncated right there. You can't go any further. The state ripped out the paving when they did that, but they left the service road just down along the frontage of this house. So this is the only way to this property on the service road. There's no access at all to Blenheim Way, for instance, or to Apache Trail. And that became important because I was involved in the 2003 Indian Hills Small Area Plan. The Planning Commission had a committee that was formed and it was for two reasons. One was when I was working on the application for this little bank up here and the second one was the Masonic Lodge that had come in. And there was a lot of concern in the neighborhood at that point about the fact that the Masonic Lodge had not only bought the lot that fronted the service road, they'd also bought the lot that fronted Apache Trail. And they'd put a driveway in so you could get from the service road here all the way through to Apache Trail. And that was a concern that the neighborhood felt that although they felt change was appropriate for those lots along the service road, they did not want the traffic from those uses going back into Indian Hills. So we have, I'd like to put up on the, an excerpt from the Indian Hills Small Area Plan. If you can see down at the bottom of that, I just want to mention to you the recommendations for professional office use down here where it says the HIHSAP, P, that's the Indian Hills Small Area Plan Committee's recommendation for professional services for all but two of the properties. Those are located elsewhere. It was based on the following findings. And the reasons for that are the, it says the undeveloped service road lots are at a lower elevation than the surrounding homes. Two-story structures along the service road would enhance noise attenuation from Harrodsburg Road, which is planned to be widened. Now, we're one story. I think the neighbors agree that one story on this lot is better than two stories. Third is, which was interesting to me, office use has less noise nuisance reports than any other land use. In other words, offices are the quietest land use in the community. They're quieter than single-family detached houses. They're certainly quieter than apartments. They're quieter than B1 uses. and it makes sense because medical offices generally don't have parties on the weekends. They don't play their stereos at 9 o'clock at night out the windows. They generally don't have cookouts on their back patio and that sort of thing. And that was important to the neighbors there. It also says Harrodsburg Road is generally a residential and professional office corridor. That's important because the main consideration for these lots, when we did it, there was heavy involvement from Indian Hills and from Harrods Hills. And the three land uses in major consideration for these properties along the service road were apartments, a professional office, or B1 commercial, which would be retail and restaurants. And of those uses, they found that Harrodsburg Road is generally residential and professional, and they wanted to add a special consideration that no conditional use parking be allowed on neighboring lots, and that is for the situation that was on the Masonic Lodge. The neighborhood did not want uses by on the lot behind them to use it for conditional use parking, and we are not doing that here, obviously. One, I wanted to point out to you, too, here it says the proximity of Harrodsburg Road to the service road lots and the future widening makes it less desirable for residential uses due to noise and traffic on Harrodsburg Road. As I pointed out, as we sit here 11 years later, this is the last house along this stretch of the service road. There are two other ones up between the bank and corporate center. Those are also slated to be professional office use. Right now, they're still being used for residential, but on this stretch, this is the only residential use. They also point out developing a little more professional would have an negligible impact on the area. because this is planned to be residential and professional office corridor. And the last thing they mention is the landscape buffer requirement. So when they considered the various alternatives, they felt their professional office would be a better use for this property than residential, single-family, or multifamily residential, or B1 uses on this property. And on page 27 of that report, just point out a couple things to you on that. There were a number of special considerations on page 27 of the report, which is two pages down. There were a number of special considerations that they adopted as part of the Indian Hills Small Area Plan. And we meet all of those, and some of them are, we just point out a few of them. Number one is that there's no additional land for off-street parking other than the lot you're on. Two is on-site detention is on-site, which we have. Third impacts us, especially minimum 15-foot landscape buffer is preferred. It didn't say required. It said preferred, and we talked about it at the subdivision committee whether it was preferred or required. along the residential boundaries to be determined at development plan level. And we have met that. We have revised our plan so that we have the 15-foot full landscape buffer along here. As you know, most in P1, you're entitled to reduce that to 5 feet if there's a fence along the property line. There is a fence here. We had originally proposed to reduce this down to less than 15 feet. We had discussions with both the planning staff and the fire department. The fire department was concerned because they wanted a full 20-foot driveway back here so that they could get their trucks in, and it seems like this is the ideal location for a fire truck if there's something here. and they've got the stanchions on the side which go down to support the fire truck during firefighting activities and they wanted to have 20 feet for that. We had 18 feet and we had a 12 or a little less buffer along here. Since the subdivision committee we met with our architect and we have reduced the size of this building So now we are fully compliant along here with a 15-foot landscape buffer, and we have the 20-foot driveway for the fire trucks on here. So we are fully in compliance with the landscape requirement and the fire department request on that. Getting back to the small area plan recommendation, number four is about lighting not directed away from residential uses, which we meet. Five is that access to the professional office uses will be only from the service road. We meet that. Our only way in and out of here is the service road as required in the plan. Six is about maximum building heights. 35 feet is the maximum. I think we have here 23. It's shown on our development plan. It's a one-story building. Seven relates to the fire station, our future expansion. Eight relates to the Masonic Lodge. Nine is not having conditional use parking on neighboring lots, which we meet. And ten is saying that commercial and retail uses are inappropriate for this area. We meet that as well. So we meet all ten. I mean, two of them don't apply, but the eight that do apply, we meet the eight requirements of the Indian Hills Small Area Plan, all eight of them which apply to this property. I wanted to show you a couple pictures off of Google. I know we do have one neighbor here who wants to be heard, which we respect, and I want to show you a couple photographs. I know there's concern about any time there's new uses in the area. This is the property as a whole. This is Google, so little A pen is our property right here. Here's the service road. Here's Harrodsburg Road. I think our residential neighbor here lives right here. I just took this photograph to show you the extent of the landscaping along the property line. As I said, that's going to be staying there because we have 15 feet there. we are aware that a number of those are ash trees. We'll have to deal with that. We don't want to take down a bunch of ash trees at the same time because that would reduce much of what we have. We want to see how things go with the ash trees. Unfortunately, if they have to be removed at some point in the future, they obviously would have to be replaced to meet landscaping requirements here. If you could show the second picture, it is black and white, but it's a closer view of that just to show the landscaping in there. Again, here's the existing house on the property. I've got a swimming pool and stuff like that in the back. Here's the property I believe our neighbor is from. You can see again here the extensive screening along the property line in addition to an existing six-foot tall wood privacy-type fence, which is along that line as well. So the, as I said, we're a one-story building on this property. We would be theoretically permitted to do a two-story building. The houses behind us, as you can see, are two-story houses behind us. Talk to Dr. Basha, and he is as interested in having privacy for his patients and his workers on his property as I'm sure that the neighbors on Blenheim Way want privacy for their uses. We think that is well provided by the screening that we have right there. I told you about the dumpster discussions we've had, that the dumpster would be up in front, but we're going to be allowed not to have a dumpster for this particular use. And in conclusion, we're very pleased at the plan we have. We appreciate the staff and the fire department and the Division of Solid Waste working with us. We think we've come up with an even better plan than what we had three weeks ago because we meet every single requirement of the Indian Hills Small Area Plan, which was a six-month procedure, many public meetings on that. Lyle Ayton from the Planning Commission and Steve Kay from the Planning Commission served on that committee and chaired many meetings which were held out in the neighborhood. There was 100% consensus that these lots along the service road should become professional office, not apartments, not restaurants, not convenience stores, but professional office on here. But they put a number of special conditions on us, every one of which we meet now with our revised plan. So as I said, we're very pleased to have a use which agrees with every effort this plan of this community has made in the last 10 years. That's the 2003 Indian Hills Small Area Plan, the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, and the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. And the only thing I'd add is, you know, in the 2013 plan, there's a lot of emphasis on redevelopment, which we are, and redevelopment for jobs, which we are, and in particular, jobs in the health care sector, which we are. Health care, jobs, and redevelopment. So we appreciate you hearing our presentation, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, would you consider treating the ash trees for the emerald ash borer? This time of year is a pretty good time to treat them in the next three, four months. Yes. There's a triage thing, an injection thing, which is... As Dr. Bashi was on a microphone, I'll repeat that to say yes, he would definitely consider doing that. We don't, he doesn't own the property yet, okay, but as soon as he owns the property, he can consider doing that, yes. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from others in the audience that wish to speak on this. Hello, my name is Justin Tinscher. I'm the homeowner at 3016 Blenheim Way. My largest concern with this is the property at 3116 sits quite a bit higher than the residential properties that are adjacent. And because of this, my two-story house is at eye level with the property on 3116. So I guess with the, unless they would be willing to maybe level the property, or I'm sorry, level the ground just a little bit in order to, I guess, lower or maybe offset that, I just have concerns with that. I have also rainwater concerns with the, well, doubling the size essentially, and then also adding asphalt. I've actually, can I show you a picture? Yes, please. Thank you. This is looking out my back deck. So you can see that it is quite steep. And with the yard there to absorb like heavy rainfall, I have not really had any issues with runoff. But by adding a good amount of asphalt and also doubling the area of the house, I just have concerns about that. And I know that other neighbors have similar issues as me. And I guess that's about it. So other than elevation, your basic concern is stormwater runoff? Well, yeah, I believe that the elevation raises concerns with privacy as well as the water runoff. And, you know, as far as privacy goes, you know, if it was further on the other side of the non-residential side of the lot, it could make up for the difference in elevation. Okay. All right. Mr. Murphy, can you address the concerns? And those are legitimate concerns for any neighbor. I'm not sure about the elevation. I mean, I'm looking at that picture so I can see it there. The comp plan had said we were lower than most of the surrounding uses. But our building will actually be a little farther away from the property line than the existing house is. And that's because we're having to preserve the tree line and get that driveway in there. So it's going to be farther back. It's still going to be one story. We're going to have a stormwater detention system. It's likely it's going to be underground detention at this point. But that's why we made this a preliminary plan. because once Dr. Basha can buy the property and we can do a final, the final will have to come back to you and the Division of Engineering, and they'll have to approve the final stormwater plan. But there will be a plan for stormwater, which there is not any plan right now. We will be paving slightly more of the property than the existing house has, But not as much as you think, because there's a big driveway at the existing house. It's a one-story ranch. There's a swimming pool with a patio and that sort of thing out in the back right now anyway. It will be a little bit more, but not as much as one would think on that. So we're certainly cognizant of those issues, and we certainly are going to be taking care of those. And as I said, that's one reason we made this a preliminary, so that when we bring the final back, we have all the stormwater sign-offs and that sort of thing. It can be properly designed and approved by the Division of Engineering and ultimately subject to your all's approval on that as well. So thank you. Mr. Murphy, when you mentioned earlier a six-foot privacy fence, is this the six-foot privacy fence? Who owns that? I think that's Mr. Country. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Tinscher, anything else? No? Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none. If there's no further questions from the Planning Commission, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. and Mr. Tinscher, you heard this is a zoning development plan and then a final development plan would definitely be addressing, if this thing goes forward, would definitely be addressing other issues more specifically. Okay. Yes, ma'am? Move approval of MAR 2014-6 Lexington, Maine, and Aesthetics Center, PLLC, for the four reasons outlined by staff. That would be the revised conditions. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. MAR 2014-6 with the revised four conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. And? Move approval of ZDEP 2014-17 Indian Hills Subdivision. with the seven revised conditions outlined by staff? And then do we need to add an eighth condition that Mr. Murphy presented per Gary Warner's email dated March 27th? I believe so. Something relating to the stated agreement? A dumpster pad agreement. Yes. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of ZDP 2014-17 with the revised seven staff conditions, adding an eighth in regards to dumpster pad and solid waste approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tinscher. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Tinscher, if you want to. We have, I think, one remaining item. It's at the bottom of page 6, ZODA 2014-1, amendment to Article 5-2A for zoning compliance permits. Good afternoon. This way. Tab 5 in your notebooks, but again, this is ZODA 2014-1, and it's a very minor change to the zoning ordinance text in section 5.2a. This is adding the words or premises to the section that describes when a zoning compliance permit is necessary. Currently, it requires one when a building is constructed or there's a change of use. This addition will also require a zoning compliance permit when a premises is occupied, not just a building is occupied. And this has not really been an issue, but the staff identified it as somewhat of a possible loophole. And so just to clarify, there are some uses in our county that don't require buildings, and this would just clarify that those uses also to occupy a property need a zoning compliance permit. The staff recommended approval, and the zoning committee agreed three weeks ago, and the stated reason on our staff report is just that it clarifies that zoning compliance permits are necessary for the occupancy of all sites, not just buildings, and this modification will reduce any perceived ambiguity about when such a permit is required. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Mr. Penn, you've got a question? Yes, I noticed here where it says special permits, special events. Is that just all over the county? Is that just in the urban service boundary? I guess what I'm asking, if there's any special events anywhere, do we need to get a permit, occupancy permit, or a conditional permit for those events? Carnivals are a good example. Those are a principal use in many zones, but it requires permission to occupy that particular property. A carnival is not a permitted use in all zones. I guess where I'm going with this, on our Zota recreational uses. Yes. Do you foresee this as a part of that, some of the uses that we're? Possibly. In the past, we've had the local laws have changed, but firework stands are not a permanent use, but they required zoning compliance permits to be issued. They'd be temporary uses. Right, temporary uses. I was just trying to get clarification. Like seasonal activities we've talked about. Yes. I would anticipate those would need a zoning compliance permit. Ms. Planton? Are we ready for a motion? Move approval of... Is there a basketball game this afternoon? Move approval of ZOTA 2... Let me say this. If there's no other questions... Yeah. Were there any other questions? If there's no other questions, since there's no one in the audience, yes, I think we're ready. Move approval of ZFTA 2014-1 Amendment to Article 5-2A for zoning compliance permits for the reason outlined by staff. Motion's been made for approval, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Any staff items? Any, no, any commission items? No. Mr. Smith, I hope this wasn't too painful for you today. Probably even easier than some Board of Adjustment meetings. I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Second. Motion's been made in a second, and all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion passes. We're adjourned. Thank you.