# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - January 28, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 28, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3865 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3865?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-01-28 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 12,360 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on January 28, 2016, at 1:33 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included nine agenda items, eleven motions and votes, and four public comments. The Commission approved the minutes from the previous meeting and addressed nine substantive agenda items. Five zoning map amendment requests with associated Zoning Development Plans (ZDP) were postponed: those for Anderson Bridgewater, LLC; Solar Eclipse LLC; Larry Luttrell, Jr.; Turwell, LLC; and Jake Reardon. Two zoning map amendments with associated ZDPs were approved: one for Strongbox LLC and one for RML Construction LLP. Additionally, the Commission approved ZODA 2015-8, an amendment to Article 17 regarding signage regulations for hospitals and regional medical campuses. ## Attendance **Present:** - Will Berkley - Mike Cravens - David Drake - Karen Mundy - Mike Owens - Carolyn Plumlee - Carolyn Richardson - Joseph Smith - Bill Wilson **Absent:** - Patrick Brewer - Frank Penn **Late:** None reported ## Votes and Decisions The Commission voted on eleven items during this meeting, with all votes conducted by voice vote and all items passing or being postponed as proposed. **Postponements** Five zoning map amendment applications were postponed: - MARC 2015-24: Larry Luttrell, Jr. zoning map amendment and associated conditional use and ZDP, postponed on motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Mundy [timestamp: 00:22:23] - MAR 2015-27: Anderson Bridgewater, LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP, postponed on motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 00:20:17] - MARV 2016-4: Solar Eclipse LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP, postponed on motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Mundy [timestamp: 00:21:18] - MAR 2016-1: Turwell, LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP, postponed on motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair [timestamp: 00:24:09] - MAR 2016-2: Jake Reardon zoning map amendment and associated ZDP, postponed on motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair [timestamp: 00:26:15] All postponements were approved unanimously by voice vote with nine members voting in favor. **Approvals** Six items were approved: - MARV 2015-28: Strongbox LLC zoning map amendment from B-5P to I-1, approved on motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 00:57:29] - MARV 2015-28: Requested variance to eliminate property perimeter landscaping, approved on motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 00:58:31] - ZDP 2015-120: Approval with 10 conditions, deleting conditions 11, 12, 13, and 14, approved on motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Chair [timestamp: 00:59:02] - MAR 2016-3: RML Construction LLP zoning map amendment from R1D to R4, approved on motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 01:26:21] - ZDP 2016-5: Approval with nine conditions, approved on motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 01:26:54] - ZODA 2015-8: Amendment to Article 17 for signage for hospitals and regional medical campuses, approved on motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Plumlee [timestamp: 01:41:55] All approvals passed unanimously by voice vote with nine members voting in favor and no votes against. ## Public Comment Four members of the public provided comments during the meeting. **Notice of Zoning Change** Janet Cabanis [timestamp: 00:24:44] requested more advance notice for future postponements. She noted that only 21 hours of notice was given for the postponement, which prevented many neighbors from attending due to insufficient notification time. Paula Singer [timestamp: 00:27:05] raised concerns about the notice process for the zoning change. She reported that zone change signs had been removed multiple times and were only posted for two of the required 15 days, questioning whether neighbors had received proper notice of the proposal. **Postponement Decision** Tony Hancock [timestamp: 00:30:01] questioned the commission's decision to postpone a case when both staff and the zoning committee had recommended disapproval. He suggested that issuing a direct disapproval would be more efficient than postponing the matter. **Signage Amendment** Nathan Billings [timestamp: 01:39:38] supported the staff's revised language for a signage amendment. He urged the commission to clarify the distinction between "hospital" and "hospital campus" in the ordinance. He also recommended that the commission consider implementing lighting restrictions near residential zones to reduce light pollution. ## Contested Items **Notice of Zoning Change** Residents raised concerns about the zoning change notification process. Community members expressed opposition after discovering that zone change signs had been removed multiple times and were not posted for the full 15-day notice period required for proper notification. This raised questions about whether the public had been adequately informed of the proposed zoning change. **Campbell Lane Closure and Turnaround** Commission members were divided on when to address the closure of Campbell Lane and the need for a turnaround at its end. The debate centered on whether this issue should be resolved during the final development plan stage or at an earlier point in the process. Staff and the applicant indicated that the matter could be addressed and resolved at the final development plan stage, suggesting a path forward despite the disagreement over timing. **Zoning Change for RML Construction** A heated discussion emerged regarding the zoning change for RML Construction, with commission members questioning the status of Campbell Lane as either a public or private right-of-way. Staff acknowledged that records on this matter were poor and unclear. The commission determined that clarification of Campbell Lane's status would need to occur during the final development plan stage, deferring resolution of this contentious issue to a later phase of the approval process. ## Approval of Minutes The minutes from the December 17, 2015, meeting were presented for approval. Ms. Plumlee and Ms. Mundy participated in this agenda item [timestamp: 00:19:09]. The minutes were approved by voice vote with no objections raised. ## Postponement of Anderson Bridgewater, LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP [timestamp: 00:20:17] The commission considered a postponement request for the Anderson Bridgewater, LLC zoning map amendment and associated Zoning Development Plan (ZDP). Dick Murphy addressed the commission regarding this item. The petitioner requested that the matter be postponed to February 25, 2016. The commission approved this postponement with no opposition from either the commission members or members of the public present at the meeting. The item was deferred as requested. ## Postponement of Solar Eclipse LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP [timestamp: 00:21:18] The board considered a postponement of the zoning map amendment and associated Zoning Development Plan (ZDP) for Solar Eclipse LLC. The item was deferred at the request of the petitioner. **Key Speakers and Comments** The discussion involved Dick Murphy, Janet Cabanis, and Paula Singer. The Harrods View Neighborhood Association submitted public comment requesting additional notice regarding the proposal. **Outcome** The zoning map amendment and associated ZDP were postponed to February 25, 2016. ## Postponement of Larry Luttrell, Jr. zoning map amendment and associated ZDP [timestamp: 00:22:23] The zoning map amendment and associated Zoning Development Plan (ZDP) for Larry Luttrell, Jr. was postponed during this agenda item. **Outcome** The item was deferred to February 25, 2016. The postponement was made at the request of the petitioner, and no public opposition was raised during the meeting. **Key Participant** Kevin Phillips was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## Postponement of Turwell, LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP [timestamp: 00:24:09] The board considered a motion to postpone the zoning map amendment and associated Zoning Development Plan (ZDP) for Turwell, LLC. The postponement was requested by the petitioner. **Key Speakers** Tom Lambden and Janet Cabanis participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Public Comment** The Stonewall Community Association provided public comment during consideration of this item, requesting more notice regarding the proposal. **Outcome** The board approved the postponement, deferring the zoning map amendment and associated ZDP to February 25, 2016. ## Postponement of Jake Reardon zoning map amendment and associated ZDP [timestamp: 00:26:15] The Jake Reardon zoning map amendment and associated Zoning Development Plan (ZDP) was postponed to February 25, 2016, at the request of the petitioner. During discussion of this agenda item, Dick Murphy and Paula Singer provided comments. Paula Singer, speaking on behalf of the opposition, expressed concern about inadequate notice regarding the proposal. This notice issue was raised as a matter of public record during the comment period. The item was deferred without proceeding to a vote on the merits of the zoning amendment or development plan at this meeting. ## Strongbox LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP [timestamp: 00:33:47] The commission considered a zoning map amendment and associated Zoning Development Plan (ZDP) for Strongbox LLC. The proposal involved rezoning from B-5P to I-1 classification and included a variance request to eliminate perimeter landscaping requirements. Key speakers on this item included Ms. Wade, Mr. Emmons, and Nick Nicholson, who presented details of the proposal and addressed the commission's consideration. The commission approved all three components of the request: - Rezoning from B-5P to I-1 - Variance to eliminate perimeter landscaping - ZDP with 10 conditions The approval was granted with no objections from the commission members present. ## RML Construction LLP zoning map amendment and associated ZDP [timestamp: 01:00:57] The commission considered a zoning map amendment and associated Zoning Development Plan (ZDP) for RML Construction LLP. The proposal involved rezoning from R1D to R4 designation. **Key Discussion Points** Ms. Whiten and Mr. Murphy were the primary speakers on this agenda item. Discussion focused on Campbell Lane closure and turnaround arrangements as part of the development plan. **Outcome** The commission approved the rezoning from R1D to R4 and the revised ZDP. The approval included nine conditions that the applicant must satisfy. ## ZODA 2015-8 Amendment to Article 17 for signage for hospitals and regional medical campuses [timestamp: 01:27:26] The commission considered an amendment to Article 17 of the zoning ordinance regarding signage regulations for hospitals and regional medical campuses. The amendment establishes limitations on sign size, location, and lighting for these facilities. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Ms. Wade, Mr. Nicholson, and Nathan Billings participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The commission approved the staff-recommended amendment to Article 17. The approval followed a review process that included public input and staff analysis of the proposed signage restrictions. --- ## Decisions - **MARC 2015-24** — postponed: Postponement of Larry Luttrell, Jr. zoning map amendment and associated conditional use and ZDP - **MAR 2015-27** — postponed: Postponement of Anderson Bridgewater, LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP - **MARV 2016-4** — postponed: Postponement of Solar Eclipse LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP - **MAR 2016-1** — postponed: Postponement of Turwell, LLC zoning map amendment and associated ZDP - **MAR 2016-2** — postponed: Postponement of Jake Reardon zoning map amendment and associated ZDP - **MARV 2015-28** — passed: Approval of Strongbox LLC zoning map amendment from B-5P to I-1 - **MARV 2015-28** — passed: Approval of requested variance to eliminate property perimeter landscaping - **ZDP 2015-120** — passed: Approval of ZDP 2015-120 with 10 conditions, deleting conditions 11, 12, 13, and 14 - **MAR 2016-3** — passed: Approval of RML Construction LLP zoning map amendment from R1D to R4 - **ZDP 2016-5** — passed: Approval of ZDP 2016-5 with nine conditions - **ZODA 2015-8** — passed: Approval of Amendment to Article 17 for signage for hospitals and regional medical campuses as recommended by staff --- ## Full transcript Too late to save myself from falling I took a chance and changed your way to life But you misread By me that's when I met you Closed the door And left me blind My life Don't let the sun Go down on me Don't let the sun Although I search myself It's always someone else I see I just allow a fragment of your life To wander free But losing everything Is like the sun going down on me I can't find Of the right romantic life But see me once And see the way I feel I've been tears but I don't care I'll never forget him The leader of the pack I'm out. Thank you. Saturday night I was downtown Worked before the FBI Sitting in the nest of bad men Whiskey bottles, fouls, fouls Food-legged booze are on the website Full of people who are doing wrong Just about to call up the DA man When I heard this woman sing a song A clear up on a fire, baby, up on my night My temper just started to rise She was a long, cool woman in a black mist But I find out a beautiful song With just one love, I was a fake mist Cause that long, cool woman had it all I saw a hand up to the table Well, a tall walking big black cat My child, I said, I hope that you're evil boy But I'm telling you, she knows where it's at The sudden that we heard the sirens And everybody started to run Jumping out of doors and tables Well, I heard somebody shooting the bomb Well, the D was pumped from my left hand I mean, she was a hole on my right Well, it's all I don't get scared Cause you're gonna be spared I've gotta be forgiven if I wanna stand I'm living with a wrong fool I'm in a flat dress Just a fine-night beautiful song Well, I just want to look I was a bad mess Cause I've long gone wrong I've had it all Had it all Head it all Head it all Head it all Head it all Head it all Head it all 1, 2, 1, 2, 3 If you need someone to count on, count me in Someone you can rely on Through thick and thin When you start to count the ones that you might ever doubt If you think of counting me, count me out When you count the ones that want you, count me too And if I'm not first on your list, count me blue Just be sure you count on me And when the count is true Count me madly In love with you If you need someone to count on When you're down And all your other friends you've lost Count me down Don't be sure you count on me When you're down and out Count me in through the gap in Or in your town When you count the ones that want you Count me too And if I'm not first on your list Count me blue Just be sure you count on me And when the count is true Count me madly In love with you Thank you. I guess mine is not the first heartbroken My eyes are not the first to cry I'm not the first to know There's just no getting over you You know I'm just a fool Who's willing To sit around And wait for you But baby can't you see There's nothing else for me to do I'm hopelessly devoted to you But now there's nowhere to hide Since you pushed my love aside I'm out of my head Hopelessly devoted to you Hopelessly devoted to you Hopelessly devoted to you My head is saying, fool, forget him My heart is saying, don't let go Hold on to the end That's what I intend to do I'm hopelessly devoted to you But now there's nowhere to hide Since you pushed my love aside I'm out of my head Hopelessly devoted to you Hopelessly, dear Lord, let you see Girl, you're looking fine tonight And every guy has got you near his side What you're doing with a cloud like me Surely what a life's little mystery So tonight I lie The stars above How did I ever win your love? What did I do? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The President's decision regarding the zone chain, separate from... It seems to be his own change request is accompanied by a conditional use request. Oh, that was a scary toy. If everyone take their seats, which they almost have, we'll get started in about two minutes. I love it. Thank you. That's true. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will welcome everyone here. It is January 28th, 2016. And in getting going, I will say from our new director of planning, who's recently been appointed to that position, we'd like to congratulate him for that. and he said, yeah, we're good to go. So thank you. First on the order of agenda today would be approval of minutes. Minutes from the December 17, 2015 hearing was sent to commission members by email. At this time, I have not heard of any. If there are any changes or corrections need to be made, please let it be known now or we can entertain a motion for approval. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, move approval of December 17, 2015, minutes. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the December 17, 2015, minutes. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda, and I understand there may be a few. Mr. Murphy, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 3, item 2, Anderson Bridgewater LLC zoning map amendment and Anderson 2 subdivision amendment property at 425 Charlesburg Road. The staff and committees have recommended postponement, so we understand and we are asking postponement. We will be submitting a revised plan for that. How long? One month. One month. That would be February 25th, I believe. Yes, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Move postponement of MAR 2015-27 Anderson-Bridgewater until February 25th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for the postponement of Anderson-Bridgewater MAR 2015-27 until February 25th. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also on page 10, item 7, Solar Eclipse LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Schroyer Property, Dozier Property Unit 2, and Palomar Trace Subdivision Unit 3C at 3600 Palomar Center Drive and 2101 Palomar Trace Drive. We're requesting a one-month postponement on that. Mr. Simpson is representing the Harrodsview Neighborhood Association, and we had some discussions this morning and I told him I would be requesting a one-month postponement. Thank you. Sorry about that. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for the postponement of the zone change request for area unsend ZDP. Ms. Plumlee? Move postponement of solar eclipse LLC zoning map amendment to February 25th. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement until February 25th of solar eclipse LLC MARV 2016-4. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Good afternoon. Kevin Phillips with Endress Engineering. Here to postpone the item on the top of page two, Larry Luttrell, Jr., Zone Map Amendment, Lane-Allen Park Subdivision, Lot 4. There's a zone change, a conditional use, and a development plan, of course, associated with that item. We are requesting a 30-day postponement for the next available zoning meeting. February 25th. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Move postponement of MARC 2015-24 Larry R. Luttrell Jr. until February 25th. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the postponement of Larry Luttrell Jr. MARC 2015-24 and the associated conditional use and ZDP. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you very much. other requests for postponements or withdrawals yes sir yes mr chairman members of commission i'm tom lambden with vision engineering at the bottom of page six we we would like to postpone till february 25th MAR 2016-1 Turwell LLC property and the associated DP with it on page 7, ZDP 2016-3, Wendell Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2. Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Hold on one second. My name is Janet Cabanis. I'm president of Stonewall Community Association, which is part of the Turwell property area. I'm not having any doubts about the postponement, but if we could please get more notice the next time we had 21 hours of notice for postponement, and many of the people out here were unable to get notified that we would be postponed, and it's very difficult for us if we don't have a little bit more notice. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. We very much understand that. And believe me, as soon as I got any inkling, we were pushing for that notification to give you all some time. Anyone else? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. One second. Motion for postponement? Yeah. On Terwell, LLC. Mr. Chairman, I move the postponement of Terrell LLC MAR 216-1 until February 25. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for the postponement of Terrell LLC MAR 2016-1 along with the associated zone and development plan. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes, Mr. Chairman. At the top of page 8, MAR 2016-2, Jake Reardon. We would like to postpone until the February 25th meeting. That MAR and the associated ZDP found at the top of page 9, ZDP 2016-4, Vallandale subdivision amended. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement, please come forward. Hi, I'm Paula Singer. I represent those who are against this zone change. We have no objection to the postponement. However, we are extremely concerned that the notice that is to be posted on the property 15 days prior to the public hearing has probably been up a total of two out of the entire 15 days it was to be posted. We understand that there was bad weather much of this time, but it does appear that the signs announcing the zone change have been removed on more than one occasion. And we are concerned about this, so we could be sure that the next time these signs are to be posted, they do indeed remain affixed to the properties. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Singer. I did hear just about this, and to my knowledge, three signs have been posted during this episode, and the last one was posted, I would say, higher and less likely to be removed. I'm not sure who's removing them, but Mr. Salley, do you have any comments? I was just going to update the commission on that. Staff has posted this property three times, most recently yesterday, once earlier this week, and then, of course, the original posting, which I think was done on the 13th of this month. One of the signs has been removed from the property. This most recent time, we posted the Versailles Road property on a utility pole. Our experience has been those tend to stand up to the weather a little better. There is another property on Delmont that also is part of the zone change, and yesterday afternoon that sign was still up. So at least the portion of the property has had one sign there continuously, it appears. Okay, thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am? May I say one more thing? The second sign that was posted was posted on a very large for sale sign that has been on the property for probably at least one year. Very sturdy sign, as tall as me. And not only was the zone change sign removed, the for sale sign was removed. So, again, we are very concerned that the neighbors in this area are not receiving proper notice. Okay. Thank you. I can appreciate that. And knowing that, you know, we cannot always control signs. We will replace them as quickly as possible. I would offer that until you hear that this thing's been settled or withdrawn, you might as well consider that we're going to be here on February 25th making another decision. Hopefully you'll get forward one way or another beforehand. Yes, sir. Tony Hancock for Hillcrest Baptist Church there on Versailles Road, one of the neighbors of this. The question I have, Mr. Owens, is why are we postponing? The staff has recommended disapproval. The zoning committee has recommended disapproval. Let's just disapprove it and move on. Save you all a lot of time. Sometimes that could be a common-sense approach. I'll ask the applicant for his reason since he didn't provide one originally. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would just like an additional month to look at an alternate use of the property, possibly a different, definitely a different plan is pretty much the reason. I would offer to say he's probably saying as opposed to getting a disapproval and starting the process all over again, he'd like 30 days to try and figure things out. So that's kind of where we are. I would offer to stay in touch with the staff as far as what progresses over the next month and so forth. Yes, certainly will. Okay. Anyone else? If it changes, it would be a start over anyway, right? if he changes this at this time, we haven't heard anything yet, but the process would continue with whatever changes that he made. But nothing's been heard yet. So it would just allow him 30 to 60 days as far as the preliminary work prior to getting to this point. So, but I would, yes, sir. I was just going to comment. The staff will be glad to update your two subcommittees next week, both subdivision and zoning committee, on any changes that we've received about the application or the development plan. Okay. Also, given the discussion about the signs, we'll try and post additional signs to those that we posted this month in an attempt to keep them up longer on the property. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, commission members? Yes, sir. Ready for a motion if you're ready. Okay, then, Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of MAR 2016-2, Jake Reardon, until, for one month. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of Jake Reardon. It's MAR 2016-2 until February 25th, along with the associated zoning development plan. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, we will continue. I think that leaves three items, if I count correctly, that's on the agenda. and we'll take them in order of the agenda, which I believe will start now on, am I correct, page 9? Page 5, Mr. Chairman. Page 5, I'm sorry. Okay. As they're setting up, this is on page 5. It's Strongbox LLC, Zoning Amount Amendment, MARV 2015-28. It does have a requested variance. and the GDP associated with that. There it is. Good afternoon, Ms. Mike. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. Our first item, as you mentioned, is on page 5 of our agenda. It should also be behind tab 3 in your notebooks. This is a request by Strongbox LLC to rezone property at 1973 Bryant Road from an existing interchange service business zone, which is our B5P zone, to a light industrial zone, which is I1. The subject property is located within the southern quadrant of the interchange, or I-75, in Manowar Boulevard. The property does abut the on-ramp, southern on-ramp, to I-75, So it does include a large piece of the right-of-way of the interstate The subject property is accessible from Bryant Road, which is sort of a loop road Within this quadrant and the majority of the uses along Bryant Road or commercial in nature there's a mixture of B5P and B6P our shopping center zone business zones in this area So the shading is a little different, but it's a light orange and a dark orange in this area. And then there's also a small section of I-1, about 15 acres, to the southeast of the subject property, also within this vicinity. Across the Bryant Road is accessible from Pleasant Ridge Drive. Across Pleasant Ridge Drive from this commercial area is primarily single-family residential, but also some commercial closer to Manowar Boulevard. In the other quadrants of the interstate, you have primarily Hamburg Pavilion, the Costco and Cabela's CC area to the north, and then to the east is primarily residential. From the aerial, you'll notice that some of the property in this area does remain vacant, but the subject property does have an existing building on the site. It was formerly a restaurant, which was built in 2004. It's been occupied by three different restaurant chains, none of which have been very successful at this location. The general vicinity, though, other restaurants do exist, as well as several hotels that are constructed. In this photo, you can see there's a Hyatt adjacent to the subject property. the applicant today is proposing to rezone the property in order to operate an establishment for the display sale and service and also minor repair of all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles that is a permitted use in the i-1 zone as well as some of the other zones within our zoning ordinance however the applicant indicated in their justification that i-1 zoning does already exist within this quadrant, whereas the other zones that would permit this particular use do not. So they felt that both the proposal was substantially in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of its compatibility with the area, but also that there had been an unanticipated change in the immediate area that was not planned by the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2013. So they did provide two justifications for their zone change. When the staff reviewed their application, we agreed that it was substantially in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and there were several reasons for that. First, the petitioner indicated that this would be compatible with the general area. Bryant Road has a number of other motorsport uses, including the Harley-Davidson dealership, an S&S tire center, and then the Lexington Motorsport Complex as well. So those are similar type uses, although located generally to the southeast of this property, there tends to be sort of a node developing within this area where these uses are available. In addition, the applicant also indicated that this property remains underutilized at this time since it's been vacant for approximately four years when the last restaurant closed at this location. In addition, they believe that they're providing a different use for the property, so reusing the subject property, which would also utilize the existing infrastructure and transportation network in the area and also not impair any of the environmental conditions on the site. the staff believes that a restricted or conditionally zoned I-1 use at this property or zone at this property would be appropriate because of the location of the hotels and their proximity to the site. Obviously, the hotels provide for a transient population, but while those people are there, they are trying to enjoy a good night's sleep. So the staff suggested a number of 10 conditional zoning restriction, 10 uses within the conditional zoning restrictions that be prohibited at this location, primarily ones that would involve quite a bit of noise and possibly off hours related to an I-1 use. The staff is recommending approval, and the zoning committee did as well. Three weeks are actually last month of the proposed rezoning because it's substantially in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The site is an underutilized site and has about a decade of failed restaurants at this location and should be considered for a possible change of business use in order to better serve our community in the urban service area. In addition, the use is compatible with other uses within Bryant Road. The proposed redevelopment will be able to utilize infrastructure and not impair the environment. And lastly, the conditional zoning restrictions will make it more compatible in this area. I'd be happy to answer any questions about their proposed rezoning. Questions for Ms. Wade? Don't say any. Thank you. There is also a variance associated with this request, and Mr. Emmons will present that following the development plan. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Next item is on page 6 of your agenda. This is ZDP 2015-120, Manor War Development, Unit 2A, Section 2, Lots A2 and A3. It is a preliminary development plan for the property located at 1973 Bryant Road. Ms. Wade pointed out earlier, we have Bryant Road here, 75, just out of the side of it, and Manor War here. You can see the uses to change from a restaurant to retail vehicle sales and also reconfigure the parking. You can see here we have a display area for vehicles along with a fenced-in area where vehicles will be left and locked up at the end of business day. your subdivision committee recommended approval for the plan based on the conditions that you see on your agenda the first of course being provided urban county council grants the or rezones property i1 otherwise any action would be null and void the next three are normal sign office, Irvin County Engineer, Traffic Engineering, Forester. Five would be to note that the property, no building permit should be issued until and unless the final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. The other items are just some cleanup items and a few discussion items. Number six being to note the height of the building in feet and also dimension the existing building. We need to dimension the area between the sidewalk and the parking lot. You'll see that on the display as the green area between Bryant Road and the parking lot. Dimension the sidewalks that are internal to the site. Dimension area between the west parking lot and the building. This would be the display area that you see outlined in orange. Next items are discussion items. First one would be to discuss relocating the fence to inside the landscape islands to better comply with Article 18 of the zoning ordinance. The thought or concern would be that if the fence is outside those islands, those islands may eventually go away or not be used for the landscaping. There are currently trees on them, so we just like to make sure those get kept. Twelve would be discussed the display area fencing compliance with Article 18 of the zoning ordinance per Article 16-4b5 of the zoning ordinance. Again, the required internal landscaping. 13 discuss the perimeter screen along the eastern property along the eastern property line per article 18 of the zoning ordinance but as Ms. Wade mentioned there is a variance request for that and then lastly discuss the plan status it is a preliminary plan didn't know if they wanted to leave it as a preliminary plan or do a final but I have said they would like to leave it as a preliminary plan and with that if you have any questions or comments Questions for Kelly? Doesn't look like it at this time. Thank you, sir. Mr. Emmons, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I am very briefly going to do the variance request. The variance request is for the landscape buffer to eliminate the required perimeter landscape requirements. As you can imagine, our industrial zone has a requirement whenever an industrial zone is next to any property other than an industrial zone. It requires a six-foot-tall fence and trees and a hedge and those types of things. The applicant has requested to eliminate the required perimeter, not the parking lot, but the perimeter landscaping requirement. The staff has reviewed this, and we are recommending approval of the requested variance to eliminate that requirement for several reasons. First, as you look at the general character and nature of the area, actually not granting the variance and requiring the fence and the trees to be put up between this property and the surrounding business properties would actually be out of character because the other properties are commercial in nature. The second one would be that there are some unique circumstances that justify granting the requested variance to eliminate that. The first one being that there are several prohibited uses that are recommended in this light industrial zone. And most of those are the high nuisance uses that we would normally want that additional landscaping to go with. And the second one is that, and as the applicant has pointed out, that there are some existing impediments, particularly on the east side of the property where the building is, that would prohibit installation of the minimum required landscaping there. Finally, the applicant has agreed to keeping the vehicular use area parking screening. And as you can see from the aerial that we put up on the board, this parking lot already has a three-foot hedge around the vehicular use area. And that's not necessarily required for parking lots in industrial zones. They are proposing to keep all of that and keep the existing landscaping. And we do feel that that is appropriate for this particular situation. For those reasons and the other reasons that we've listed in our staff report, we are recommending approval of this landscape variance to eliminate the perimeter landscaping. That concludes my prepared remarks, and I believe that concludes all of our staff presentations. If you have any questions for me or other staff, we are available. Thank you, sir. Ms. Mundy? Mr. Emmons, I guess my question is, there's already the shrubbery around that perimeter that is there. Are we covered if it starts dying out? I mean, can they just yank it out of there if it starts dying, or will they have to replace it? Being a vehicular use area, it would be required to have that, since it's just a parking lot, it would be required to keep that. It's also a part of the development plan as it's being proposed in a part of their application. I believe that it's covered. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, Jimmy, this fence is going out, I guess, in the middle of the parking lot. Yeah, what's that look like? I'm going to let the applicant answer that one. I don't know the exact, I don't know what that fence is going to look like. Well, so there's still internal landscaping, I see, required here. Do they have to add any, or are they just using what's there? We are recommending, of course, that that fence be shrunken in so that it's on the inside of the landscape islands rather than on the outside of them. We think that that would help ensure that the landscape islands remain. Inside those islands? Inside the islands is our... Not how it's shown. Not how it's shown. That was the discussion item that Mr. Hunter was just going over with the commission. Other questions? I've got a couple, but I'll reserve them. There's just clarification on the discussion item, so I'll reserve that for later. We'll hear from the applicant. Thank you, Jimmy. Thank you. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Strongbox LLC. Since we kind of have approval for the zone change and, you know, at least the recommendations for the DP and the variants, I'm going to skip a kind of formal presentation, and I do just kind of want to address your all's concerns specifically. Right now, first, it's going to remain a preliminary development plan, and any issues with the fence and internal landscaping we're going to ask to kind of reserve for the final development plan stage. But after talking to our people about what this fence would look like, we have a feeling it's going to end up being invisible, and we are going to find a different way to secure the vehicles without having to put a fence up there in the very middle. So we're hoping to eliminate this issue entirely once it comes back for the final development plan stage. With regards to the landscaping concerns as well, yes, we would have to replace them. There are not only rules with regards to parking lot landscaping, but specifically for the sales of automobiles, there are increased landscaping requirements, which we would be in compliance with those as well. So we will have to replace any shrubs that go out if that does occur. At the root of what we're asking to do here is we're trying to keep everything the same. Right now, this area is very wide open. All of the lots have the exact same shrubs, the exact same trees in place at the exact same spacing. I have several pictures kind of going down that street if you all would like to see them. But what we're asking is basically just to keep everything the same, considering this is very relatively low on the industrial use kind of spectrum, and we are also agreeing to eliminate any of these kind of noxious industrial uses that would cause any issues. I do want to specifically point out that, yes, there is a hotel right next door to us. On the other side of the hotel is basically the exact same use we are proposing. They have the exact same screenage that we are proposing today as well. So it is not out of the character. It is, in fact, is the character of the area. I'm happy to take any questions, but if you will allow it, I will stop talking. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. You're so kind. Thank you. I am here for you, Mr. Chairman. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson at this point? Yes, sir. What, I mean, are you going to have some kind of area where you keep junk, I guess, or parts or scrap vehicles? We are hoping not to have any type of scrap or junk. This isn't that type of operation. I know. They start out that way, but then they end up, you know, dragging stuff somewhere back behind those buildings and stuff. I mean, I'm concerned about the hotel. I very much understand. And the pictures that were shown of where the existing building is in comparison to the hotel itself, you will see that is kind of a secure wall over there. This is not a situation where we're piling stuff up on the kind of hotel side because it is a building across that property line. We are also putting in garage doors basically to have everything kept inside. What is that back behind that? That is basically employee parking right back there, and that is a giant detention basin on the green space. Well, it looks like there's a building with some doors or something on it. This would be a dumpster right here. That's a dumpster enclosure. That is not a storage yard by any means. Any type of repair that would occur on site is more, it would be a situation where a part has been broken and we order in parts. It is not an auto repair store. It is not a place to get your oil change or anything like that. This is a place to come buy new and used ATVs and motorcycles. Other questions? No. Thank you, sir. I do have a couple of questions, I would say, for the staff more so at this point. Let me ask first. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, let me ask a couple of questions. I'm not sure who wants it. It's more on the development plan than anything. With number 14, we are hearing that this will be a preliminary development plan. Can that just simply go away, number 14, or should we denote this as a preliminary development plan? Mr. Chairman, if I can put something on the overhead for you. Okay. I'd be glad to try and answer that and any other questions. Given the discussion, 14, the applicant has said their desire is to keep this a preliminary development plan. The staff early on thought this might be eligible for a final development plan since there really are very few physical changes proposed to the property. However, in deference to them, I think certainly 14 can be deleted. number 13 and number 12 Mr. Emmons has discussed in terms of the variance. Should the commission grant the landscape variances, that would constitute those discussion items. I think the only real question would be with condition number 11. Changing that from a discussion item to a condition requiring that fence to be relocated inside of the landscape islands is the staff's preference. I think the applicants asked you to consider deleting that one as well so that that item could be deferred to the final development plan. I think that's up to the commission. The staff is just concerned about the protection of those lines through violence. I hope that answers your question. Thank you, sir. I think it does for the most part. Yes, sir? Real quick, if it makes you feel better, we can keep 11 as a resolve. I don't believe we're specifically saying to delete it because we do understand that fence is causing some trepidation. And I would like I would feel more comfortable if we basically just had that resolved at final development plan. I'm not asking you all to delete that at all. OK. All right. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. To do that, you may as well just delete the condition. It stays there. And the record of this hearing goes into that discussion versus having them change the drawing at this time. I think that's really the only question left. I'm sorry, are you saying change 11 to resolve at the time of final development or just delete it? If you think about a condition that has to be resolved in the next two weeks, their preference is to keep that the way it is, so the better condition would just be to delete 11. Delete it? Okay. You're okay with that? I think we'd prefer to keep 11, but certainly if the commission is wanting to defer that and leave that the way it is right there on the board, we're fine with that as well. Okay. All right, then. Anything else from the staff? No? Okay, thank you. Questions from the commission? If not, then we'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for commission member discussion and or motions. We would need three motions. Since this is a zone change, MARV 2015-28 first. Second would be the variance, and third would be the ZDP. Yes, sir. Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of MARV 2015-28 Strongbox, LLC. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of MARV 2015-28 Strongbox, LLC. Let me ask just for clarification in accordance with staff recommendations. Yes. Okay. So the motion's been made for approval and has been seconded. I think Ms. Richardson seconded. Did I hear? Yes. We've got multiples. Ms. Mundy, Joe Smith, I think his name was up there as well. So the motion's been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Whoops. Whoa. We'll back up. We'll try this again. So vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Next would be the variance. Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of the requested variance, eliminating the property perimeter landscaping for the entire property. For MARV 2015-28, Strombox. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for approval of the requested variance. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the associated ZDP 2015-120. All right. Move for approval of ZDP 2015-120. I think we're now going to have, I believe, 12 conditions. We're going to eliminate number 11 per bill, changing 12 and 13 to resolve, and eliminating 14. Delete all of them? We don't have a second, Jeff. yet. So, okay. All right. The motion is? With the 10 conditions, 10 first conditions, eliminating 11, 12, 13, and 14. Okay. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson to approve ZDP 2015-120 with the now 10 conditions, deleting 11, 12, 13, and 14. So no questions on the motion. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. We will move on. The next would be the other zone change request that is left. It's on page 9, RML Construction LLP. It's MARV 2016-3, RML Construction LLP, and the associated ZDP. You do have a revised staff recommendation on the ZDP that is on a salmon sheet of paper that is before you. Thank you. Add six in your notebooks for the Planning Commission. Petitioners are requesting a rezoning from a single-family residential zone, in this case an R1D zone, whoops, my presentation's not right there, to a high-density apartment R4 zone. Just ignore the rest. The request is for a property at the end of Campbell Lane. The property's address is 836 Campbell Lane, so it's currently the terminus of Campbell Lane. um campbell lane is a rural road off of liberty road inside of manowar boulevard in this portion of the southeast part of fayette county um just and we'll look at the larger map general vicinity we've had several zone changes in this area so manowar boulevard to the south and east of the subject property liberty road comes from the northwest and then intersex man of war at also at todd's road in this vicinity campbell lane is to the north of that major intersection this portion of fayette county has developed mostly over the last 20 years since man of war was developed or built recent changes in the area include liberty roads expansion in 2008 And it was a widening project that widening project took a few homes on Campbell Lane, but at the other end the adjoining apartment complex which is Brighton 3050 has purchased several of the parcels at the end of Campbell Lane and expanded the Brighton 35 3050 apartment complex a few times now The Larger apartment complex is zoned R3. The expansion that RML Construction has done has been in the R4 zone. Other zones within the area include for Kennedy Landing, which is just to the east of the subject property here, also R3. Campbell Lane remains single-family, as does the Caden Town Historic District across Liberty Road. In addition, we had a recent zone change for a kennel and veterinary clinic to be for just to the northwest of the subject property. The Brighton Shops and Todd's Center are located along Manowar Boulevard, so there's kind of a commercial note at that Manowar-Liberty Road and Todd's Road intersection. Subject property has been single-family residential, but currently it's vacant. since it's proposed for a rezoning and intensification of use in this area. The aerial photograph does show the existing apartment complex located on what was the Adams property to the east in this view. It's primarily accessible from Helmsdale Place off of Manowar Boulevard, but also from the entrance to Brighton Place shops further to the south down here. As we mentioned, there were several rezonings in the area. In 2014, RML Construction rezoned two parcels at the corner of Old Todd's Road and Liberty Road. And then in 2015, very recently, part of a parcel across Campbell Lane from the subject property was rezoned. In both cases, primarily R4 and some B1, but this proposed rezoning will, in effect, complete the development of the apartment complex. The applicant is proposing one building on the subject property, but it will cross over the right-of-way of Campbell Lane, which will in effect end Campbell Lane and keep about eight single-family units on Campbell Lane and pretty much end any further expansion of the apartment complex in that location. Again, just from a different view, Campbell Lane with the eight single-family residences remaining. In the foreground of this photo is across what used to be a railroad track into the Hamburg area on Alley Shiba Way, which is a professional office area. This is a photo of the subject property, and you can see in the background where the apartment complex is already very near the subject property here. And this is a view across Campbell Lane, the piece that was rezoned just in December of 2015, also to R4. And then a view back towards Liberty Road down Campbell Lane. The applicant contends that their proposed rezoning is in agreement with the comprehensive plan for a few reasons. First, it encourages a variety of housing types by locating multifamily residential near public parks and greenways, and then also it encourages developing neighborhood nodes to serve surrounding residential areas. the staff actually thinks that the more appropriate findings for this case are not that it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan but rather that it's an appropriate zone for this location and the R1D zone is no longer appropriate and we found that for four reasons first, redevelopment of the site is compatible and sensitive to the character of the immediate area especially since the parcel across Campbell Lane was recently rezoned to R4 in the last month. The applicant does propose to close Campbell Lane and construct a 28-unit apartment complex there, which would, as I mentioned, effectively complete this apartment complex and terminate Campbell Lane. Second, the R4 expansion will be a more straight zoning boundary in this location. I'll use the overhead as a show my line. the line for R4 would continue across Campbell Lane and then along for the apartment complex into the R3 area sort of in this general vicinity rather than a notch around the subject property. So we can go back to the zoning map if that helps. So the R4 and R3 exist on three sides of the subject property. So by creating a more straight zoning line, it would provide for a better transition between the single family and the multifamily in this location. Third, there's not a part of the... The apartment complex is not really a part of the neighborhood node, which is more of a commercial designation in the comprehensive plan, but it does help to support that development, the business development along Manowar Boulevard. so that that does make the higher density development near the commercial nodes a good fit. And then lastly, although single-family residential would be possible at this location, it is a bit awkward because the surrounding uses are more intense, and in this case on three sides, than the existing or previous use of that location. So for those reasons, the staff does believe that the R1D zone is no longer appropriate here and the R4 zone is appropriate. We do suggest one conditional zoning restriction related to lighting, that the exterior lighting in this area be directed, shielded and directed away from the single-family residential. And hopefully with the back of a building along that line, the parking lot lighting won't affect the single-family residential much. So staff's recommending approval, and I believe the zoning committee also recommended approval three weeks ago. Thank you, Ms. Whiten. Any questions for Ms. Whiten? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm just a little bit confused, Tracy. The closure of Campbell Lane, that doesn't isolate any other property, does it? It does not. Okay, thank you. On the aerial, you can see the other parcels along Campbell Lane. This one's already developed and is owned by the applicant. This one is proposed for development and also owned by the applicant. So they would be terminating Campbell Lane approximately there, and then everybody else along Campbell Lane would go that way. They would be able to exit the other two options on their development plan. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. We're going to terminate Campbell Lane, but someone going down Campbell Lane, it's a very narrow little dirt road. Where is someone going to turn around at the end, like the UPS truck? Currently, the development plan doesn't show any sort of termination or turnaround. That may be something that needs to be addressed with the final development plan. Okay. Other questions? If not, thank you. We'll move on to the development plan. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. This is the preliminary development plan associated with the MAP amendment request you just heard presented. It is ZDP 2016-5. Cadentown Subdivision, Lots 3 and 4, an amended preliminary development plan for the property located at 836 and 852 Campbell Lane and 2833 Liberty Road. The purpose of the amendment is to rezone additional property from R1D to R4 and to add two apartment buildings to the existing residential development. i will be referring to the salmon colored revised conditions that you have before you on tuesday of this past week the 26th we were presented with a revised plan by the applicant that considerably expanded the original submittal and integrated it with the brighton 3050 existing development plan, which was in response, as a matter of fact, to a condition that was heard by the subdivision committee. The subdivision committee had originally seen a plan that consisted mainly of this. And here, the applicant with this revised plan has integrated it into the Brighton 3050 development plan and the proposed a preliminary development plan for the entire property is what you see before you the subject lot is here the r1d is proposed to go to r4 the remainder of the existing development on brighton 3050 the entrance here at helmsdale place off man of war the other entrance here at liberty off of liberty road there is a rather substantial drainage detention easement and in fact wetlands that runs down more or less north to south through the existing development the remainder of the buildings are existing and these are the two new buildings that are proposed on this end of the revised plan based on review of this revised plan the staff recommends approval provided the urban county council rezones of property to r4 otherwise any commission action of approval today is null and void urban county engineer urban county traffic engineering urban forester green space planner condition six we ask that they denote record plat designation or current deed information on the plan condition seven farther down the page to note that timing of the closure of campbell lane will be resolved at the time of final development plan remember this is a preliminary number eight denote that compliance with perimeter yard setbacks primarily in this area for article nine requirements group residential will be uh demonstrated at the time of the final development plan and finally condition nine denote that the compliance was zoned his own screening along the adjacent b4 here an r1d here zoning properties will be documented at the time of final development plan so with that we'll take your questions or comments questions yes sir But I assume that that portion of Campbell Lane is not public right-of-way. It is, sir. It is public right-of-way from Liberty Road up through the terminus. At that point, yes, but not beyond that. Yes, sir, it is public right-of-way. Okay. Other questions? I guess let me ask you while we're talking about it with what Ms. Mundy asked a moment ago. would number seven take care of her question as far as termination or a turnaround at the end of Campbell Lane? Yes, sir. It could conceivably at that time, the time of final development plan, a solution or an alternative could be proposed. Okay. By the applicant. Yes, sir. But the Campbell Lane right now, it does not have a turnaround or anything like that at this point, right? It does not have a, like a cul-de-sac or a turnaround area. So it ends already at the property? Yes, sir. That is correct. Because I think if we're thinking some turnaround, that's going to affect where that building can go. It could conceivably, and perhaps the applicant would like to speak to that, but it could conceivably affect it. Yes, sir. People who do drive down Campbell Lane and end up turning around, there's areas where that happens. For instance, on the frontage of this property and then across that was just rezoned, you can see mud tracks where people have turned around. So there's been enough area to do that historically. but I don't know that they're doing that legally I mean that's on private property that they're doing that but it's been possible I would be concerned about imposing a turnaround because I think it will affect that building it could cause it to shift Dave and I talked earlier they have an excess of parking on this property by about a hundred spaces So maybe some room to accommodate something. Let me ask you this. I thought there had been some question as to Campbell Lane being whether it was public or private. At this point, the staff believes it's a public street. Okay. All right. There is right-of-way per GIS if you look at the GIS. Any other questions right now? Following up on that, if the property beyond the closure point of Campbell Lane is owned by the applicant in fee, can he be required to provide turnaround for a public right-of-way that he doesn't own? I would defer to the law department on something like that. Mr. Drake, if I could address your question. Sure. The governments may want to then answer as well. Because you will see a final development plan for this property, should it be rezoned, at that time I think the Planning Commission certainly can consider what facility, if any, should be developed at the end of what will be the end of Campbell Lane. I think the tougher question, as we see here today, is what truly is the status of Campbell Lane? The staff understands that the government has been maintaining it, but it may be a private situation. We're just not sure. We ran into this a little bit on Woodward Lane for a zone change we had there about a year, year and a half ago. This looks to be a very similar situation. It was an old county roadway that was developed many, many decades before merger, and the records on the road are just very poor. So certainly I think at the time of a final development plan, we would want to know definitively what is the street. Is it public or is it private? And then secondly, at that time, regardless of that answer, I think the commission can consider whether or not there ought to be a more typical turnaround provided at the end of Campbell Lane. I think we have two different issues there. I hope that answers your question. I understand. Thank you, Bill. Yes, ma'am? Do you want to add? The only thing I was going to say is that we do that all the time. I mean, when people come in with private developments, it just has to be proportionate in cost to what they're doing. In other words, we can't say you have to repave and curb and gutter all of Campbell Lane because you're doing something at the end. But we could consider adjacent to and in proportion to their development. But I think it's a final development plan issue. unless there's other questions unless there's other questions we'll move on and ask for the applicant thank you very much Mr. Chairman I'm Dick Murphy representing RML Construction and Buddy Goodwin is here with me today on the fifth row, who's the general counsel for RML, and Rory Cayley from EA Partners, our designer. And I want to thank Rory. In the subcommittee review, there were questions about how this met the lot coverage for the development as a whole because we were showing at that time really the development plan showing just the new buildings because the bigger building is not part of this property nor is the left side of this building. They're part of the Dr. Gentry property, which you heard two months ago. And so we were only showing this area. Rory has redone this to show how it relates to the entire development. And I think we had a meeting with the staff earlier this week, and it answered most all of their questions. As mentioned, this little piece here, which we're only talking about a one-third of an acre tract right there. not even all of this building, is one-third of an acre, and it's a follow-up to the zone change we had a couple months ago for Dr. Gentry's property. As you all recall, during the process of that zone change, Dr. Gentry entered into discussions with Mr. Ball at RML, and they ended up agreeing to purchase this back portion. And at the same time, a little later, RML entered into discussions with Mr. Vanderpool, the owner of this tract and entered into an agreement to purchase it. Unfortunately, we couldn't hold up the gentry zone change due to his own contractual requirements, so we couldn't hitch this one on to the gentry zone change. But it really is a follow-up to that. As the staff mentioned, we're surrounded on three sides by property zoned R4 or R3 at this point, and it truly is an appropriate zone change. we're in agreement with the staff recommendations on the zone change and on the revised salmon colored sheet of the development plan recommendations i did want to mention the issue about campbell lane as we've been checking into that the deeds on campbell lane show talk about coming to easement 18-foot wide easement. They don't mention it being a road. They just mention it being an 18-foot wide easement. I think there's about 14 feet of paving on that 18-foot wide easement. It's one lane at best. As you all know, it's not in good shape back there. I checked with traffic engineering earlier this week, not Ms. Cowker. She was out, but another person in traffic engineering who felt that it was a public right-of-way. We'll check with them further on that to make sure it is. If it is a public right-of-way, we'll petition the Urban County Council for a street closing, which is something they do with, it's a matter of routine with them in doing street closings, so we don't anticipate an issue with that if we do need to go through the street closing. We'll discuss the issue of a turnaround at the final development stage. We, to be honest about We don't see the need for a turnaround at this point, but we'll discuss it further with you later on. I would point out that right now up here is a gate, which is the fire access into Brighton 3050, which is the name of this development. We are vastly improving that by putting a new fire gate is going to be right here through the gentry property, which will be a much, much better solution to all this. We'll be vastly increasing the safety situation with this property. I want to point out it has two other public accesses into it right now, so it's in good shape. But we're vastly increasing the quality of the fire access here. We're decreasing the amount of houses on Campbell Lane. Campbell Lane used to be twice this length, has never had a turnaround on it. But my observation in Campbell is that most people, I've been out there a few times preparing for this case, and most people who mistakenly turn on Campbell due to the poor quality of the pavement, they turn around in the first chance they get. They don't go all the way back on Campbell. They never go all the way back there. so we don't really see a need for it but we'll we'll discuss that further with you because we understand that's something that's reserved to the final development plan stage so with that the as i said we do recommend we do agree with the staff recommendations on both the zone change the conditional zoning restriction and on the conditions of approval on your revised staff report on the development plan. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We do appreciate the revisions. Questions for Mr. Murphy? If not, thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, staff, do you have anything else to add? No? I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among commission members. And there were motions. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. If no one has anything, I'll... I'm not seeing anyone. All right. I'm going to move approval of MAR 2016-3 RML Construction for the reasons provided by staff. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of MAR 2016-3. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. and the ZDP? Move approval ZDP 2016-5 with the nine conditions revised by the staff. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the revised staff recommendations for ZDP 2016-15. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thanks, everyone. We can move to the last item on the agenda. It's ZODA 2015-8 Amendment to Article 17 for signage for hospitals and regional medical campuses. I will say this is a continuation from a month ago. I was absent at that as long as some others, and I will participate in this. I have reviewed not only the video from last month, but also all the minutes and associated documents and i believe the others that are present that were absent have done the same i'll just ask for confirmation on those yes miss richardson yes thank you um with this being a continuation we had gotten through the rebuttal stage last month or you all had gotten through the rebuttal stage last month, and it was asked for the staff to take a look at any possible revisions from information that had been made public. They have done so. They have a staff, a new and latest staff alternative that is before you, and I do believe it was presented to both parties involved. What I will do is let Ms. Wade take us through the revised staff alternative, answer any questions, and provide just a brief three or four minutes for each side to make any sort of rebuttal on those new, latest alternative texts, if needed. Ms. White. Thank you. I just handed out a three-page little packet to the Planning Commission and to the applicant. This is an email and attachments from Nathan Billings, who represents the opposition to the case. After the Planning Commission held the public hearing in December, I believe he met with his clients and then met with me to review their concerns, and they brought forward another staff alternative to what they presented at the hearing in December, which they felt was, I think, a bit of a compromise or addressed some of the concerns that we had discussed. And so just briefly, I'm going to ask you to go to the third page of that, and I'm going to highlight really what the staff reviewed of their proposal when we left in December, The question was, has the staff reviewed what the opposition proposed in terms of changes? And I indicated we had not had enough time to meet and review those changes. So we have done that. And we, instead of starting from the December hearing information, since they had proposed some changes in January, we wanted to start from that point. So in January, the opposition submitted and also shared with Mr. Nicholson these proposed changes. The first is to define hospital campus, and that's shown in red in the top left corner of that piece of paper. And they indicate that that definition that they're proposing is substantially similar to the definition of regional medical campus. And then under Section 12, which all of Section 12 is proposed to be new by the applicant, I would say that they were proposing several changes. First to Section A, they wanted to clarify, and this was part of the discussion in the hearing in December, what happens at an intersection. So the proposed language prior was along a street of a collector arterial, you can have such size sign, but along a local, you can have this size sign. Well, their question was, what happens when it's the intersection of a collector and a local? What size do they get? So that was the second change they proposed. Under Section B on the last page of their packet, they were suggesting changes to and defining the word entrance. but generally it was a rewording of what the applicant had indicated they were in agreement with there were no changes to section c and then the opposition proposed a section d which would if a any sign was within within 200 feet of a residential zone or a local street then the lighting of that sign would be changed. You would only be able to indirectly illuminate the sign, which is like a spotlight onto the sign which is not lit, or no illumination. So they wouldn't be able to internally illuminate something. And then the last change they're proposing was specifically defining entrance related to, in this case, specifically the hospital campus, regional medical campus, because they were concerned that an entrance identification sign wasn't going to be located at an entrance. So that was the, again, opposition's proposal. When the staff met to review this, we felt that the two definitions were not necessary. Hospital campus, I think it's sort of a common sense approach that if there's a hospital, They're all on development plans, that anything on the development plan contiguously would be considered the hospital campus. A stray building, even though it's owned by the same entity, the staff building inspection in terms of signage would not consider that part of the hospital campus. So we did not feel that hospital campus was necessary to be defined. And then the definition of entrance, because it was so specific to a hospital campus or regional medical campus, again, we didn't feel that that was really necessary. So when the staff looked at the rest of the proposals, the one piece that we, or two pieces sort of, that we did feel needed to be incorporated were the at an intersection issue that the opposition brought up. So under Section A, the staff agreed generally with the rewording of the opposition so that it would be three signs per campus. If a sign is located along a collector or arterial street, it could be 150 feet and 20 feet in height. If a sign, again, a project identification sign, is located at the intersection of a collector or arterial and a local street, it would be a step down, smaller, half the size sign, and only 15 feet in height, and that no identification sign would be located along a collector, or excuse me, along a local, or at the intersection of two locals. So that would keep those signs all along the collector and arterial streets, even if it happened to be at an intersection. Does that make sense for everybody? Okay. And then under Section B, the project entrance identification signs, the staff did want to clarify that, again, the black text there is from the applicant. So we use that as a starting point, that two entrances be identified per campus, just adding the words per campus for clarification. But as opposed to defining the word entrance, the staff felt that adding this sentence would address that concern. So the signs shall only be located at entrances shown on an approved development plan. That way, the Planning Commission is reviewing those entrances. they're indicated clearly for the public as well as develop the hospital to know this is an entrance and it's clear for everybody moving forward that then there would be the possibility of a sign at that entrance. Again, this language only allows those on collectors and arterials, not local streets, the entrance signs, and they'd be up to two entrances. We did look at, and we did before the first hearing, look at some of the other hospitals, and I mentioned during the first presentation there are 10 hospitals in town. Some are exempt and some are not. But we have considered how these changes will impact those hospitals as well as the applicant's existing hospital on Nicholasville Road. So I don't believe that there will be any unintended consequences at this point. We are fully aware of how this will impact them. I believe that ends my comments. Thank you, Ms. Wayne. Any questions for Ms. Wade? If not, thank you. What I'll do is move on to Mr. Nicholson, if he's got any comments in regards to this alternative text, latest version. In speaking to parties involved, both of them thought they would be very, very brief. So I'm sure we'll keep it that way. And I'm going to say three or four minutes. Easy. I will be indeed very brief because, as you all are aware, this was continued for a very specific purpose. It was only for the staff to look at the proposed text and any other unintended consequences that got brought up. It was to address those issues. It was not necessarily to agree to every request that was made by the opposition. It was not to rehash old arguments. It was not for more presentations. It was just to take a look at what was identified as issues and see if we do have the right language. The staff did that. They brought back basically changes. Two of them were directly the same language that the neighborhood had requested. The applicant is here before you to say, once again, we are in complete agreement with what the staff has put forth before you today. We stand united in that, basically in this language. This will represent the third time we have slashed the size, the number, and the possible locations for signs to directly meet the concerns that the neighborhood brought forth. With project identification signs at the intersection of any type of local and arterial, we've agreed to slash our original request by half. We've agreed to reduce the height by a fourth of what was requested. On local streets themselves, we've agreed to not have any signs whatsoever. With regards to the entrance identification signs, and again, those are kind of like the neighborhood signs, welcome to Firebrook, welcome to Dogwood Trace, et cetera, we agreed to basically cut a third of the allowable size. And we've also agreed to limit the numbers of those allowable signs. We've also agreed to ensure that only those signs can go on entrances of collectors and entrances that are specifically on the development plan. That's it. Again, we are in agreement with the staff, and I'm happy to take any questions, and I'm happy to address any concerns with regards to the opposition language on why we did not think that it was necessary to include in the latest revision. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Seeing none. Thank you. Mr. Billings? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Nathan Billings, Billings Law Firm, on behalf of Southern Heights Neighborhood Association. I just have a question for clarification that I want to make sure I understand. With respect to the staff revised language for 17-7E-12B, it would not allow those on local streets, although it doesn't say they can be there the importation because it doesn't say they can be therefore they can't be okay that's what i thought but i wanted to make sure um we are largely in favor of what the staff has recommended we appreciate staff's time they have gone above and beyond in meeting with the applicant and with the neighborhood association to go through this they have considered significant data in making this revision we are in favor of the staff recommendation with two things we just asked the commission to consider in its discussion at the conclusion of my remarks the first thing is to continue to just evaluate the difference between hospital and hospital campus we understand what the commission may do but we also understand that lawyers get paid to fight over ambiguous words and every time we can remove ambiguity let's do that the second one is we suggest language regarding lighting within a certain residential zone or local street to avoid signs that the lighting is on the interior and projected out. It's not to remove lighting on signs. It's just to reduce the light pollution that would be in those zones. That was in our language that we proposed in subsection D of our language. That's all we have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Any questions for Mr. Billings? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you. I would ask anyone, any individual present that's not represented by either one of the two fine speakers that just spoke, I'd like to say anything. If not, we'll move on. Ms. Wade, anything in closing? No? Okay. We've heard it. We've heard it several times. and all of this is closed and open for any discussion among commission members and then a vote. Comments can be kept after the vote. Questions from anyone? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Zota 2015-8 Amendment to Article 17 for signage for all hospitals and regional medical campuses as recommended by the staff alternative tax. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion has been seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Any discussion on the motion? If not, I'll call for a vote. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Let me say, and any commission member can chime in as possible, as for myself personally, I'm always in favor of less signage. It has been several years. It had been until about a month ago, several years, that I'd been actually into the Baptist campus. Believe me, I have known for 40 years where Baptist Hospital was. is and I really don't think three or more identification signs is needed. However, we're looking at things in a more global type basis. I do believe that signage is needed, identification, location, directions, whatever you want to call it, because that is a large campus now. There are several buildings and anyone needs help getting around. I would only ask Mr. Nicholson to relate to his applicant that they're in a tough situation. I think it's 30 acres that have grown to near capacity over many years. And recognizing that that sort of development, one, they're needed. and it is important for everyone, including their neighbors, that they're there, but also ask them simply to be good neighbors, especially to those folks on Hiltonia, recognizing that even what they're doing, which is good, can put a constraint onto their neighbors as well. But with that said, any other comments? If not, thank you, folks. Thank you, everyone. I believe that's it as far as the agenda items, commission items. None? Yes, sir, Mr. Duncan, anything to add? Mr. Chair, just to remind everybody that we'll see you next week in our offices for committee meetings. Thank you. Let me ask, if y'all want to go, you can. I want to have knowledge as to who's in the back visiting with us today. Students, I would presume? Maybe law students? Kathy Moore's class? Very good. Welcome. Glad you're here. I did serve with Kathy Moore on the Board of Adjustment a few years back. So anytime you'd like to come and wade through this with us, we are more than welcome. So any other items? If not, I'll entertain. Yes, sir. There may be an audience item today. Audience item. I'm sorry. I started to go that route and got carried away with the students. So no audience items. So thank you. I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Thank you, folks. Meeting's adjourned. you