# Planning Commission - 5/26/16 - May 26, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 26, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3971 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3971?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-05-26 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 14,438 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 May 26, 2016, at 1:35 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included six agenda items, eight motions and votes, and three public comments. The Commission addressed two zoning map amendments and development plans that were approved: the Lail Interests, LLLP project and the R. Walker Properties, LLC Avon Acres Subdivision, Lot 2 project. The Whayne Supply Company Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Development Plan was postponed. Two zoning ordinance text amendments were considered: ZOTA 2016-1, addressing amendments to Articles 7, 23, and 26 for Environmentally Sensitive Areas, was postponed, while ZOTA 2016-2, which proposed an amendment to Article 23A-5 to allow schools for academic instruction in the EAR-1 Zone, was approved. The Commission also approved a Planned Form Review (PFR 2016-1) for the University of Kentucky's School of Music and WUKY 91.3 FM. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Richardson, Joseph Smith, Bill Wilson, Jim Duncan, Bill Sallee, Barbara Rackers, Traci Wade, Tom Martin, Debbie Woods, Hillard Newman, Casey Kaucher, Captain Greg Lengal, Lieutenant Joshua Thiel, and Tracy Jones. **Absent:** Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and Brewer. ## Votes and Decisions **MARV 2016-11: Zone Change for 5569 Briar Hill Road** [timestamp: 00:31:18] The motion to approve a zone change from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Neighborhood Business (B-1) for 5569 Briar Hill Road passed by voice vote. The motion was made by Mr. Sher and seconded by Mr. Richardson. Three conditional zoning restrictions were deleted: the restriction on sale or provision of wine, beer, or alcoholic beverages other than by the drink; the restriction on brew-pubs; and signage requirements regarding indirect illumination and size. **ZDP 2016-44: Avon Acres Subdivision, Lot 2 Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:33:29] The motion to approve the Avon Acres Subdivision, Lot 2 development plan passed by voice vote. Mr. Sher made the motion and Jake seconded it. Two conditions were deleted: the requirement to resolve compliance with Article 18 and the requirement to revise the status of the plan. **MAR 2016-7: Zone Change for 1551 Greendale Road** [timestamp: 01:05:46] The motion to approve a zone change from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Light Industrial (I-1) for 1551 Greendale Road passed by voice vote. Mr. Sher moved and Mr. Richardson seconded. Five conditions were revised: "and concrete products" was struck from prohibited use J; condition #6 was revised regarding building permits for office and industrial structures; condition #13 was revised to require Urban Forester approval for tree canopy compliance; condition #14 was revised to address possible road improvements at final development plan stage; and condition #15 was revised to address sanitary sewer connections at final development plan stage. **ZDP 2016-42: Lail Property Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 01:07:00] The motion to approve the Lail Property Zoning Development Plan passed by voice vote. Mr. Sher made the motion and Mr. Richardson seconded it. Four conditions were revised using the same language as MAR 2016-7 regarding building permits, tree canopy compliance, road improvements, and sanitary sewer connections. **ZODA 2016-2: Article 23A-5 Amendment** [timestamp: 01:27:30] The motion to approve an amendment to Article 23A-5 to allow schools for academic instruction as an accessory use in the EAR-1 zone passed by voice vote. Mr. Sher moved and Mr. Richardson seconded. **PFR 2016-1: University of Kentucky School of Music and WKY 91.3 FM Public Facility Review** [timestamp: 01:40:11] The motion to approve the public facility review for the University of Kentucky School of Music and WKY 91.3 FM passed by voice vote. Mr. Sher moved and Mr. Richardson seconded. A recommendation was added for landscaping and fencing around the tower and auxiliary building. **MAR 2016-15: Whayne Supply Company Amendment and Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:02:19] The motion to postpone the Whayne Supply Company zoning map amendment and development plan passed by voice vote. Ms. Mundy made the motion and Mr. Richardson seconded it. **ZOTA 2016-1: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment** [timestamp: 00:03:23] The motion to postpone the Zoning Ordinance text amendment to strengthen oversight of environmentally sensitive areas passed by voice vote. Mr. Wilson moved and Mr. Richardson seconded. ## Public Comment Three speakers provided public comment during the meeting. **Jacob Walbourn** [timestamp: 01:02:24] requested a modification to development plan conditions, specifically asking for an exception to condition #6. He sought to allow land disturbance and minor improvements on the property before final development plan approval, citing the property's long vacancy and the need for preparatory work. **Dick Murphy** [timestamp: 01:22:36] expressed support for the Christian Academy of the Bluegrass text amendment. He noted approval of the revised staff recommendation, stating that the amendment resolves zoning inconsistencies and allows schools to function as an accessory use to churches. Mr. Murphy characterized this arrangement as more efficient and community-friendly. **Walt Gaffield** [timestamp: 01:26:21], president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, supported the staff's revised recommendation regarding schools in the EAR-1 zone. He emphasized that churches and schools are desirable community institutions and stated that the revised restrictions appropriately address infrastructure concerns. ## Appointments Debbie Woods was appointed to Planning Staff. ## Contested Items **Conditional Zoning Restrictions for Walker Properties** The Commission debated whether to delete conditional zoning restrictions related to alcohol sales and brew-pubs. Staff and the applicant supported deletion of these restrictions, while the Building Inspection Division expressed concern about enforcement implications. The disagreement centered on whether the existing conditional restrictions remained necessary or should be removed. This matter resulted in a split vote among Commission members. **Land Disturbance Permit for Lail Property** A heated discussion emerged regarding the Lail Property land disturbance permit. The core disagreement involved whether the applicant could perform land disturbance work before final development plan approval had been granted. Concerns were raised about permitting requirements and infrastructure considerations. Rather than a simple approval or denial, the Commission ultimately resolved this contested item by imposing a modified condition that allowed the applicant to proceed with limited improvements while addressing the permitting and infrastructure concerns that had been raised during the discussion. ## Lail Interests, LLLP, Zoning Map Amendment & Lail Property Zoning Development Plan The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment and development plan for property owned by Lail Interests, LLLP located at 1551 Greendale Road [timestamp: 00:34:08]. The request sought to rezone 3.2 acres from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Light Industrial (I-1). **Key Speakers and Presentations** The discussion involved Traci Wade, Kelly Hunter, and Jacob Walbourn. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with conditional zoning restrictions and a revised development plan for the property. **Commission Action** The Planning Commission approved the rezoning request. As part of the approval, the Commission made modifications to: * Prohibited uses under the zoning designation * Development plan conditions **Outcome** The rezoning of the 3.2-acre parcel from Agricultural Rural to Light Industrial was approved with the modifications adopted by the Commission. ## R. Walker Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment & Avon Acres Subdivision, Lot 2 [timestamp: 00:04:40] The Commission reviewed a zoning map amendment and development plan for R. Walker Properties, LLC, involving 0.59 net acres located at 5569 Briar Hill Road. The request sought to rezone the property from A-R (Agricultural-Residential) to B-1 (Business) zoning classification. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning with conditional zoning restrictions and a variance for landscaping requirements. Key speakers during the discussion included Bill Sallee, Kelly Hunter, and Dick Murphy. The Commission reviewed the conditional uses and conditions associated with the rezoning. During deliberation, the Commission approved the rezoning and development plan but made modifications to the staff recommendation by deleting certain conditional uses and conditions from the approval. The rezoning request was ultimately approved with the Commission's modifications in place. ## Whayne Supply Company Zoning Map Amendment & Whayne Supply Zoning Development Plan [timestamp: 00:02:19] The Commission considered a zoning map amendment and development plan for Whayne Supply Company. The request sought to rezone 1.47 net acres located at 2201 Georgetown Road from A-U (Agricultural-Urban) to I-1 (Industrial) zoning classification. Steve Ruschell represented the petitioner in this matter. Rather than proceeding with the hearing, Ruschell requested that the Commission postpone consideration of the item. The postponement request was based on unresolved issues related to property access and integration with adjacent properties that required further attention before the matter could move forward. The Commission granted the postponement request and scheduled the item for reconsideration at the June 9, 2016, Subdivision Meeting, allowing time for the petitioner to address the outstanding access and integration concerns with neighboring properties. ## ZOTA 2016-1: Amendments to Articles 7, 23, and 26 for Environmentally Sensitive Areas [timestamp: 00:03:23] The Commission reviewed a proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance designed to strengthen oversight of environmentally sensitive areas through the Board of Adjustment. The amendment would modify Articles 7, 23, and 26 of the zoning code. **Presentation and Recommendation** Traci Wade presented the staff recommendation, which supported approval of the proposed amendments. **Outcome** The Commission postponed action on this item to allow for further review before making a final determination. No vote was taken at this meeting. ## ZOTA 2016-2: Amendment to Article 23A-5 to Allow Schools for Academic Instruction in EAR-1 Zone [timestamp: 01:08:03] The Commission considered a request to amend Article 23A-5 to allow schools for academic instruction as an accessory use in the EAR-1 zone. **Presentation and Proposal** Staff presented a revised text recommendation that would limit schools for academic instruction to those located on collector or arterial roads and associated with churches in the EAR-1 zone. This modification addressed the original request by establishing specific conditions for where such educational facilities could operate. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Bill Sallee, Dick Murphy, and Walt Gaffield. **Commission Action** The Commission approved the revised staff recommendation, allowing schools for academic instruction in the EAR-1 zone under the proposed conditions limiting them to church-affiliated facilities on collector or arterial roads. ## PFR 2016-1: University of Kentucky's School of Music and WUKY 91.3 FM [timestamp: 01:28:31] The Commission reviewed a public facility review for the University of Kentucky's proposed relocation of its School of Music and WUKY 91.3 FM to 2640 Spur Road. The presentation was led by Barbara Rackers and Tim Option. The project involves renovations and the construction of new structures to accommodate both the School of Music and the radio station at the new location. During the review, the Commission identified a specific recommendation regarding site improvements. The Commission recommended that landscaping and fencing be installed around the tower to enhance the appearance and integration of the facility within its surroundings. **Outcome:** The Commission approved the request for the public facility review. --- ## Decisions - **MARV 2016-11** — passed: Approval of zone change from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Neighborhood Business (B-1) for 5569 Briar Hill Road - **ZDP 2016-44** — passed: Approval of Avon Acres Subdivision, Lot 2 development plan - **MAR 2016-7** — passed: Approval of zone change from Agricultural Rural (A-R) to Light Industrial (I-1) for 1551 Greendale Road - **ZDP 2016-42** — passed: Approval of Lail Property Zoning Development Plan - **ZODA 2016-2** — passed: Approval of amendment to Article 23A-5 to allow schools for academic instruction as an accessory use in EAR-1 zone - **PFR 2016-1** — passed: Approval of University of Kentucky School of Music and WKY 91.3 FM public facility review - **MAR 2016-15** — postponed: Postponement of Whayne Supply Company zoning map amendment and development plan - **ZOTA 2016-1** — postponed: Postponement of Zoning Ordinance text amendment to strengthen oversight of environmentally sensitive areas --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon everyone. They said we're live, audio-wise anyway. Are the microphones working? No, sir. No, sir? You won't be able to hear. Thank you for the response. They're just coming to the camera. Oh, they're just coming to that. So it sounds like we've got to speak loud for you all today. I'm not. So don't be bad, just move up towards the front, I guess. What's going on? I grew up in LA, I know. Good afternoon, everyone. We'll call this meeting to order. We do have minutes for approval from April 14, 2016 and May 12, 2016. I do know that some corrections have been noted and sent and corrected. If there are any other corrections or additions, please let it be known now, or we'll ask for a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the minutes as corrected. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of those minutes, April 14th and May 12th. Voice vote here will be fine. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Moving to postponements and withdrawals from today's agenda. Do we have any? Yes, sir. On behalf of Wayne, excuse me, I'm Steve Rochelle, appearing on behalf of Wayne Supply Company, which is item three on page four in the accompanying development plan. And we would ask for a postponement until June 9th at the subdivision committee meeting. We believe we'll have all development plans and subdivision plans worked out by then. Thank you, sir. anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of Wayne Supply Company Zoning Map Amendment and Wayne Supply Zoning Development Plan to the June 9th of 2016 meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until June 9th of Wayne Supply, MAR, 2016-15 and the Associated Development Plan June 9th, 2016. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements? Yes, ma'am. Chairman Owens, On behalf of the staff and several of the Planning Commission members who couldn't be here today, there had been a request to postpone ZODA 2016-1, which is one of the Planning Commission's initiated text amendments for environmentally sensitive areas. It's on page 5 for two weeks to the, I believe, June 9th public meeting date. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to re-post-home ZOTA 2016-1 amendments to Article 7, 23, and 26 on the environmental sensitive area. Is it two weeks? June 9th. Thank you. Motion's been made for a two-week post-home. Do we have a second? And it has been seconded. Any questions? If not, All those in favor of two-week postponement for Zota 2016-1, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, we don't have much left, but I'll ask Mr. Salley to sound the agenda for any abbreviated hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Good afternoon. The two remaining zone changes are recommended for approval. And with that, we can see if anyone is here in the audience that wishes to comment on either of those zone changes remaining. First, here's on page 3 of your meeting agenda, MARV 2016-11, Walker Properties LLC. This is a requested zone change from an AR, Agricultural Rural Zone, to B1, Neighborhood Business, for about six-tenths of an acre. Property having an address of 5569 Briarville Road. At this time, the staff would ask if anyone is present in the audience who wishes to comment or object to this proposed zone change for the Walker Properties on Briard Hill Road. Seeing none, that could be our first abbreviated hearing today. I'm sorry, skip the layoff. Thank you very much. The other item is the very first item on the agenda, bottom of page one, MAR 2016-7, Layel interest LLP. This is a zone change from AR to light industrial. I want the property of 1551 Greendale Road and we would ask if anyone's present today speak or object to this proposed zone change on Greendale Road. Seeing none. Mr. Selle, let me ask you as far as abbreviated, is that one even possible since we do have discussion items? Mr. Chairman, I think that's totally up to you. We do have discussion items on the development plan. The staff is prepared to offer you an approval recommendation on the development plan, but given those discussions, if you'd rather proceed with the Walker property, that would be appropriate. Why don't we do that if that's possible then? Yes, sir. Let's start with Walker property. We'll set up and be ready to begin. Thank you. EAR. EAR. EAR. That's EAR. What do you tell? That's EAR. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this item is on page 3, item number 2 on your meeting agenda. This is MAR 2016-11, should be MARV 2016-11, a request by R. Walker Properties, LLC, a zone change from AR, Agriculture Rural, to B1, Neighborhood Business. The request involves 59 hundredths of a net acre and 67 hundredths of a gross acre, property being at 5569 Briar Hill Road. I want to use an old comprehensive plan just to orient the commission to the location of the subject property. Of course, you're very familiar with the urban service area in Fayette County. The subject property is in the very northeastern portion of the county. It is in the Avon Rural Activity Center, and that is bounded by Briar Hill Road and by Houston Antioch Road here. There is a major railroad line that severs this Rural Activity Center and the subject property is actually on the southern end of the Rural Activity Center. In looking at the zoning map of the area, and again to orient you, we have Haley Pike, which comes from the Interstate 64 interchange just off the map to the south and turns into Briar Hill Road at the railroad crossing. Of course, we have the Bluegrass Station operation by the state government just to the north of this general location. The subject property is situated in the middle of Avon, if you will, the rural settlement that has been there for a number of years. It is zoned agricultural rural, as are the properties to the east and south of it. There are also properties to the west that also have that zoning designation. Property immediately west is in a light industrial I-1 zone that was approved several years ago. The property to the north is in an I-2 heavy industrial zone that was approved decades ago, and there is a sizable concrete business, mixing and storage business, located immediately north of the subject property. The subject property has been a non-conforming business use for a number of years, and it is proposed to continue in its operation. In part, the applicant's asking to rezone the property so that they can avoid having to go to the Board of Adjustment every time that there is a change sought in the allowable businesses operating at this location. Most recently, this property was before the Board of Adjustment to change from a store to a restaurant use. So they are asking that it become a conforming use. As always, the staff reviews the comprehensive plan whenever we have a zone change, and we've done so with this one as well. And we've focused our review on the rural land management plan because it is in the rural part of the county and because it is in one of the four rural activity centers. In the rural land management plan, the Avon Rural Activity Center was recommended to have 3.2 acres of retail use. By our calculations for other business zoning that is to the east of this location in this rural activity center, there's currently about 2.7 acres of B1 use. So we find that if this property is rezoned, the resulting land use that would be available for retail trade uses in this activity center would be about 3.3 acres, which we think is in substantial, very substantial agreement with the specific land use recommendations of the Rural Land Management Plan. The staff and your zoning committee have recommended approval of this rezoning in that the requested zone change from AR to B1 is in agreement with the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan, which is an adopted element of the 2013 conference at plan. We've outlined four reasons that appear on your agenda and also in the staff report. To summarize those, the proposed B-1 zone can be utilized to implement the plan's future land use recommendation for this rural activity center. Also, the subject property is not out of character with other properties in this rural activity center due to its age and the limited commercial use it's had in the past. And then finally, the 1988, 1996, and 2001 comprehensive plans have specifically recommended retail trade and personal services uses for the subject property. As I mentioned, this is an MARV application, meaning there is a variance associated with it. There's also a development plan that will be presented to you in just a moment, but at this time I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission about our staff report on the zone change portion of the application. Questions for Mr. Selle? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, this is EDP 2016-44 Avon Acres Subdivision, located at 5569 Briar Hill Road. Mr. Sally got everyone oriented with it. This is the development plan. It shows one existing building which will remain, an associated parking along the back and side. You do have your floodplain in the back. Now, this was originally recommended for a postponement due to variance needing for the landscaping between the two different zones. There's a large wall here, but I believe this way we'll cover that. This is a slightly different plan than what you all saw at your subdivision committee on May 3rd. We had a new one turned in that shows a landscaping island here, here, and also here as well. we have two entrances that are existing right now this course island is not here and it's all all open and as i mentioned this was recommended for postponement but now subdivision committee recommended for approval based on the conditions you see on today's agenda and, of course, the first one being that the property does get rezoned by the Urban County Council. The next few are your typical sign-offs with urban forestry, traffic engineering, and engineering. We need to have the 25-foot floodplain setback on the plan and reference current FEMA map on the plan. Denote floodplain elevation on the plan. Denote that this plan shall comply with Article 19 of the zoning ordinance. addition of pavement and gravel information between the front of the building and Briar Hill Road addition of a street cross section for Briar Hill Road and resolve compliance with Article 18 possible landscape variance William Swate will present to you you do have one condition there, number 12 revise the status of the plan, it has been changed to a final development plan And with that, I'll turn it over for any questions or comments. Kelly, real quick, with number 12, since this is the final development plan, 12 can be deleted now? Oh, yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. Any other questions? No? Thank you, sir. No? No? No? No? No? No? No? No? No? No? No? Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. The third piece of this application is, of course, the variance that both Mr. Salley and Mr. Hunter mentioned. They are requesting an elimination of all of the zone-to-zone screening required for the subject property. On the subject property there, it's bordered by two different zones, well, three zones, but two different requirements. Along the northern and western boundaries where the proposed B1 is adjacent to industrial zoning, Zoning, the requirement is for a tree every 40 feet plus either a hedge or, excuse me, a double row hedge or a fence six feet tall. And that 15-foot buffer required there can be reduced to five feet. Along the eastern property boundary, though, where the property is zoned AR, the requirement is for a tree every 40 feet plus, And there's three options, a six-foot-tall planting, one evergreen every 15 feet, or one tree every 20 linear feet consisting of 50% deciduous and 50% evergreen and smaller flowering shrubs. So it is a little more complicated. Along the AR zone boundary, though, the option to reduce the distance from 15 feet to 5 is not available. As you probably are aware from our committee meetings, the property is, because it's a nonconforming use, it is already built out along basically to both the eastern and western property lines. In this case, there is an existing privacy fence along the western property line, and then there's a creek along the northern property boundary, and along the eastern property boundary there's an existing masonry wall. In the staff's review of the variants, we found that those existing features, the privacy fence, the wall, and the creek, already provide the necessary zone-to-zone buffer, if you will, to protect or facilitate a protection between the two zones in this instance. In fact, the industrial zone property to the west appears to actually be a residence, and the AR zoned property to the east appears to have a bit more intense use when we look at the aerials. The staff recommended postponement to the zoning committee because the Landscape Review Committee had not had an opportunity to meet about this proposed variance. Since then, on May 10th, they did meet. They did not have a quorum, but they did review the proposed variance and found that although landscaping wasn't planned to be provided, they were along those boundaries. The applicant is providing some landscaping. I'm going to point to the development plan. in landscape islands here at the corners and in the front, which satisfied the opportunity to, I guess, increase landscaping on the subject property. In addition, they felt that that was kind of a trade for the zone-to-zone screening to allow for the interior landscape islands to be done. The applicant contends that the required zone-to-zone screening would actually reduce the amount of parking they have on the property, which could negate the zone change and their proposed reuse of the property, or they would have to infringe into the creek area in the back as well. Based on the favorable statements from the Landscape Review Committee members and the staff offers a recommendation of approval of the proposed variants. And there are findings as well as, I guess, findings and conditions of the approval, and those should be in your notebook behind tab 2. Generally, though, granting the requested variants will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the property because of the existing character won't be impacted. Second, granting the requested variance will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance because the whole intent of zone-to-zone screening is to require buffering between incompatible land uses, and the staff and landscape committee feels that that is occurring with the existing conditions. Third, the special circumstances that apply to the subject property that generally don't apply within the area is that there is a tall masonry wall to the east, a heavily vegetated stream to the north, and the privacy fence with trees along the western property line. Fourth, a strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant in that they would likely have to reduce the amount of parking they had on the property. And then fifth, although the circumstances surrounding the requested variances are associated with the zone change, which is the applicant's choice, no development has occurred on the property since they've requested that, and they're following the normal design or development review process, so they've not circumvented the ordinance in any way. And this variance would be null and void if the commission or the council chose not to rezone the property. And the conditions are just normal conditions associated with variances that these would be placed on the, notes would be placed on the face of the development plan, noting there are variances that have occurred and that all permits would be requested as necessary by the applicant. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the variance or other pieces of the application. Questions for Ms. White? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy, pleased to be representing our Walker Properties. Randy Walker is here with me today in the second row. As you know, he and his two sons, Craig and Chad, are the ones who have revitalized National Avenue. Mr. Walker grew up in this area and actually worked at this store. when he was younger, and this came up at a judicial sale, and he was able to purchase it. Also with me, of course, Rory Cayley is with us from EA Partners, our designer, Chaz Height, who works with me as well. And we're in general agreement with the staff conditions. I'll just show you a couple other pictures, especially about this variance. This is our property. Looking at it from Briar Hill Road straight on, you notice the wall on the right side. I'll have another picture of that here in a minute. That's the wall on the right side. This is the property to the east of us, which is right over here on the development plan. As you can see from the aerials, that property next to us is completely surrounded by that wall. It's between 8 1⁄2 and 12 1⁄2 feet tall, completely encircling the property. We don't know what's in there. We saw from the aerial photographs that you had, there's about 11 or 12 cars in there. It's zoned AR, but my point is it's not being used for AR purposes. It's a very small, less than one-acre site. And it is about as well-screened as it can possibly be at this point. That's a close-up of that wall along Briar Hill Road. It goes along there. and this is on the other side the property to the west of us which is zoned i2 you can see there's a fence mr walker plans on replacing that fence but they they apparently store pallets on that property to the west of us it's owned i1 right now so i think that's all we have yeah the we do generally agree with the staff conditions we had one item that was brought up at the zoning committee twice and that is the conditional zoning restrictions we talked about there's other stores in the area we have to compete with here at the at the zoning committee the zoning committee voted to recommend deletion of conditional zoning restriction two that's sale or provision of wine beer or alcohol or alcoholic beverages other than by the drink to delete that one and on four to delete brew pubs from the prohibition and that's just because we this this property has been a store for at least 70 years it's been selling a beer by the six pack or wine that time we'd like to be able to continue to do that and the reality is that it has to be able to compete with other stores in the area which sell that so the zoning committee had recommended deletion of item two and item 4 deletion of brew pubs I think the staff was in agreement with that on on the conditional zoning restrictions so other than that as I said we're we're in agreement with the staff recommendations we are this has been a store for 70 years the big issue is that whenever a use changes they've had to come back to the Board of Adjustment. In 2013, when you shift more than 50% of the floor space from one to the other, you had to come back. So in 2013, they had a case which I think was to change retail with accessory restaurant to restaurant with accessory retail just because the restaurant floor area got a little bigger than the retail floor area is. So we're trying to avoid having to come back to the Board of Adjustment every time a non-conforming use changes or if they put an antique store or an office or something in there on that. This zone change would give them a little bit of flexibility on those items. So I've got a lot more I can tell you about this, but hopefully that's all you need and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about it. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you, sir. else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Mr. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly owe the commission and Mr. Murphy an apology for not covering the conditional zoning part of this application. My only defense is I'm not having a very good day today, and I apologize to you. Mr. Murphy is correct. The staff is not opposed to the deletion of either of the items the Zoning Committee recommended, number two or number four. I do need to tell you about another possible deletion. We spoke with the Division of Building Inspection after your Zoning Committee meeting. They are not enamored with the very final conditional zoning recommendation, number three under B, about the signage. that is one that the staff had proposed to restrict the lighting and the size of the sign on the property should it be rezoned. I will tell you this is not a huge difference from the ordinary type of sign allowed in B1 but they are very concerned that they might miss it at a permitting stage. So we did tell them and their staff that we would suggest its removal to you at your hearing. And again, I apologize for not doing that earlier. Thank you. Questions? Mr. Selle, I might have let you get away a little bit quick. You know, the last thing that you're talking about, as far as the lighting, so they could have, there would be no restrictions. You know, this says shall be indirectly illuminated. if illuminated at all. I really don't see what the problem is with that. And the building inspection is just afraid that they may miss it? Yes, sir. That's it. Can we put it in bold letters? Well, we do supply them with copies of the development plan. Okay. If the commission wishes to leave that in, I don't think the applicant's opposed. It will be on the development plan for the property. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Any other questions before he walks back to him? Yep. Hold on a second. No, not for him, but for you. Actually, is it in or out? That's going to be up to, you know, personally I'm all for leaving it in. That's going to be whoever makes the motion, though. Okay. If I could speak to that, I think on number three, we'd be in favor of removing that, too. indirectly illuminated i think is where you have a spotlight shining up on the sign and with the width of the right-of-way we have here those lights might have to be in the right-of-way and we'd like to like to avoid that and sometimes those spotlights themselves are more of a hazard to the neighbors than than having a regular old sign on there regular old sign with no illumination or with internal illumination which is the lighting on the inside with the little fluorescent tube shining through it okay so ultimately like I said a moment ago the answer it's going to be up to whoever makes a motion so anyone else wish to speak on this if not I'll close this part of the hearing open it up for any discussion among Commission members and or motions whenever you're ready. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of MARV 2016-11 as on January. Okay. Thank you. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of MARV 2016-11 for the reasons provided by staff. Any questions? I guess my question is, My question is are we... Okay. We're going to have to deduce us? Yes. Okay, what are we doing with those? On the conditions, I want to delete number 2, number 4, and then delete this sign thing down under B. Yeah, the group up. Just the group up part of 4. The group up part of it. And... Try that one more now. Okay. Your motion is? My day's kind of getting like Bill Scott. Yeah, I hear you. Your motion is, I think you did say approval. I'll put words in your mouth. I move for approval of the zone change, and now these conditions, these prohibited uses, I'm going to take out number two, and then number four, the proof of, and then under B, delete number three. Okay. Second. Second. Okay, so now we have a motion and a second for approval. deleting number two, the brewpumps in number four, and under B3, deleting B3. So, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Mr. Chair, Commissioner. Yes. I haven't finished. Yes, sir. Variance. The waiver, approval of the waiver. Variance. Variance. Okay. Okay. The motion is for approval of the requested variance with this zone change in MAR 2016-15. Do we have a second? Second. Second. And second in any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And then we've got a- Mr. Chairman, the ZDP, move approval of the ZDP 2016-44. Second. Any changes? Any changes? I'm taking out number 12. Second. I think we could conceivably take out 11 since we approved the variance. Okay, take out 11? And I second that, Jake. No, I'm just trying to get it right. So the motion is for approval of ZDP 2016-44, now with the 10 conditions, deleting 11 and 12. Motion was seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Thank you. So now we move to Lael on page one. MAR 2016-7 Lael interest. We do have a ZDP to go along with that. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. Our next item is MAR 2016-7, a request by Lael Interests. I think it's LLLP, but this is a property at 1551 Georgetown, or not Georgetown, Greendale Road, and it's a request to rezone from an agricultural rural property zoning to a light industrial zoning. This should be at the bottom of page one of your agenda and behind tab 1 in your notebooks. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Spur Road and Greendale Road, which are generally located in the north part of the county inside of the urban service area boundary. The zoning in the vicinity of the subject property is generally residential to the west and to the north, in this case in an R3 zone. There is currently an existing subdivision to the west. To the north, although zoned R3 a number of years ago, those properties have yet to be developed in that immediate vicinity of the subject property. To the east of the subject property, across Greendale Road, is a light industrial parcel, and then light industrial zoning continues further to the east, generally to Georgetown Road. And then in this general vicinity, light industrial zoning is between Spur Road and New Circle Road, and again between Georgetown, which is to the east, and the Norfolk Southern Rail Line, which borders the subject property as well. The property is about three and a half acres. The applicant is asking to rezone it in order to locate a construction yard on the property. They are an owner of a concrete plant in a different location, and they wish to do some staging on this property, hold some of the construction, I guess not equipment, but construction materials utilized for, in most cases, roadway projects or bridge projects in various locations. The 2013, well let me show you an aerial view of the subject property. A majority of the subject property is vacant, not really utilized much in terms of an agricultural piece. Oops, it does have a small pond and several small structures when this photograph was flown in 2013. Some of those structures may not still be there. I'm sure the applicant can tell us. You may notice that there's also on, within the area of the rezoning, a leased piece of property to, I believe it's a gas company, that according to our records and the applicant's research, seems to be something that the railroad has leased the space in their right-of-way to a gas company. and it's an I-1 use as well so the staff's not concerned about them continuing to operate there if the property's rezoned. Across from the subject property you may recall recently we've had a development plan for the property just directly across Greendale to expand what's occurring further to the east in terms of the Eagle Beer Distribution Center, and then there's an existing recording studio at that intersection that has recently been transferred to the University of Kentucky. Just another view from the north looking to the south of the subject property. with there are, I believe, one, maybe two houses and some accessory barns on the property. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan, well, actually, the applicant contends that the request is in agreement with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and that the existing zoning is no longer appropriate and the proposed zone is appropriate at this location. Since the 2013 Comprehensive Plan no longer focuses on a specific map-based recommendation, the policies were reviewed by the staff in assessing whether this agreed with the Comprehensive Plan. I would note that from 1980 to 2007, this subject property was recommended for light industrial through the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. and it does have adequate infrastructure for industrial use in that the railroad line borders the subject property. However, Greendale Road and Spur Road are in need of some improvement since they do currently still have a rural cross-section in this vicinity. The petitioner mentioned a few of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan related to maintaining the urban service boundary concept, creating jobs within the urban service area and supporting infill and redevelopment. But in the staff's opinion, the appropriate justification for the subject property to be rezoned is really that the AR zone is no longer appropriate in this location and that the I-1 zone is appropriate. The agricultural rural zone, since the property is less than four acres, Agricultural use of the property would be relatively difficult, and obviously parts of it are already utilized for structures and a pond. In addition, it's inside the urban service area and is intended to be utilized for a more intense urban use rather than any kind of agricultural use. And then lastly, the fact that from Spur Road to Georgetown Road, generally the land use is light industrial and then south of Spur Road that is also true the proposed zone change is compatible with the existing land uses and existing zoning in the area so the staff is in agreement with the applicant's justification and recommended approval to the zoning committee actually two months ago the applicant requested a one-month postponement to further evaluate their interest in moving forward given the requirements of the development plan for improvements to Spur Road and Greendale Road. The staff did recommend approval, I mentioned earlier, for the reason that the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. I won't go over the exact findings again, but we also recommended conditional zoning restrictions, and those are found on your agenda and in the staff report. Since the staff report was published, the applicant notified us that they had one concern about the conditional zoning restrictions, and we discussed that and have agreed to a modification. Under the prohibited use list, item J mentions concrete mixing and concrete products. Obviously, they're interested in storing products for construction use, which may include concrete manufactured products. So the staff is willing to strike the words and concrete products from the conditional zoning restriction and just leave the words concrete mixing. And those conditional zoning restrictions are, we believe, appropriate and necessary to protect the adjoining or nearby residential neighborhoods from the most intense uses that could be located in an industrial zone and also because the Royal Spring Aquifer is located on the subject property, and it's an environmentally sensitive area that should be protected. And then third, other light industrial zones in this vicinity have been similarly restricted through conditional zoning restrictions by the Planning Commission and the Council in the past. Happy to answer any questions about this proposed rezoning. Questions for Ms. Wade? Sorry. Ms. Wade, I do have one question, I guess. Yes, sir. with the prohibited uses. On number I, the above ground and below ground storage for resale of any flammable or non-flammable gases, how does that affect the lease property that's next to the railroad tracks selling propane? I don't believe they're doing retail sale there. The applicant should be able to answer that more specifically, but I don't believe it's retail of that. But retail or resale? Resale. Yeah. Sure. Thank you. Sure. Just for clarification, the property with the propane is not our property. It's actually located on railroad right-of-way, so the conditional zoning restriction would not impact that operation because it's not our property. Okay. I would agree with that statement. Thank you, Ms. Buck. Okay. Any other questions for Ms. Buck? If not... Before I step away from the podium, we did have one email from April in opposition to the proposed rezoning, so I'll circulate that. Thank you. Very short. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, this is ZDP 2042 Loyal property. The property is located at 1551 Greendale. Make sure you're now familiar with the location of it. This proposal shows one building. They're going to be in the location that there are two now. They're going to remove those and leave this other existing building here. It's also showing associated parking with this. We do have an existing drive off of Spur Road. The applicant would like one off of Greendale as well. I'd like to mention the property over here is where the old recording studio was. There's a condition here that I just want to make you familiar with right now. There is a spring associated on this property, but it does flow over here and impacts a small area here. So I'd like to just make you familiar with that before I go over the conditions. Your subdivision committee recommended postponement for it due to the fact we didn't have a tree inventory information. But we've had a few revised changes here, and I'll go over those. but we now recommend it for approval. Of course, the first condition would be it gets rezoned by the Urban County Council. Two through five are your normal sign-offs, Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Forester, and including Department of Environmental Quality. Six, we need to denote no building permit shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Seven, we need to denote review by the Royal Spring Aquifer Protection Committee at the time of the final development plan. Nine, just need to mention the entrance off of Spur Road. Excuse me, I'm sorry, that was condition eight. Nine is provide exact road cross-section information from at least one location, denoting that on the plan. 10, denote one-way vehicular circulation with arrows on the drives. 11, denote limits of outdoor storage uses on the plan. This way he spoke about those uses a moment ago. 12, identify the non-billable areas associated with the St. Clair Spring. That springs across the street, but it does flow down Greendale and across. It affects a small portion of this property. 13, 14, and 15, you can see on your agenda those are discussion items, but with talking with the applicant and urban forestry, we have been able to make a few changes to those. Number 13 would now read compliance with the tree canopy requirement of Article 26 to the approval of the urban forester. number 14 be remove discuss and have it possible improvements to green down spur roads at the time of a final development plan and then the last one would be to resolve connection to sanitary sewers as you all know now it is on septic out there but they're working to correct that with that i'll turn it to for any questions or comments repeat number 15 again number 15 resolve connection to sanitary sewers oh excuse me i'm sorry it's time final vote okay my apologies there you go very good um okay thank you any questions for kelly no thank you good afternoon mr chair members of the commission jacob walburn on behalf of bobby layell and law Layal interests, actually Tracy's right, limited liability, limited partnership. We're largely in agreement with everything you've heard. I have one minor tweak to the development plan. I've prepared a PowerPoint because I can't help myself, but since we're so largely in agreement, I'll skip that for this time unless you have specific questions. Resolving a couple of the questions that Ms. Wade had raised, one of the houses that showed on that 2013 aerial, it's actually the one that's closest to Greendale, was removed by the prior owner of the property before we purchased this property. So all that exists now is one house and two barns. So that house right there was removed by the prior owner before we came into possession of it. Our proposal actually seeks to repurpose that house for use as an office space and then removing these barns but replacing largely in the same footprint with a larger barn or storage facility. Mr. Lael runs DeLong Concrete. You may be familiar with DeLong Concrete. If you're not, their predominant use or their predominant business is bridge rehabilitation. They do infrastructure rehabilitation. and what Mr. Lael seeks to do on this property is simply store some of his materials and use it as a staging area when they go out on jobs. It would not be an everyday use. This would be somewhat infrequent when they're getting ready to go out to a job site. They would come, take the materials they need, and depart. With regard to the railroad right-of-way, actually, and you can kind of see it on this map, the railroad right-of-way extends pretty far out there. There's a ferrule gas. I'm not sure exactly what's going on there. I would mention to the commission that I live just off of the map over here, so I drive by this area quite frequently. I don't believe they're doing retail sales there, simply from my personal observations, but there is some gas business going on there. It's not located on our property. It is on a large section of right-of-way. We would agree with staff's justification for the rezoning request. This is the Norfolk Southern Rail Line, enters Fayette County down by the Waveland State Historic Site, exits the north of the county and serves Toyota. It's one of the busiest rail lines in the Commonwealth. I've told this story before, but one of my daughter's first words was choo-choo because of the frequency with which the train comes through this site. So we don't think that the use that we're proposing, this light industrial use, would be any more noticeable to the neighbors than the trains that frequently go by. We're appreciative of staff's revision of their development plan recommendations. I do want to touch on one particular item that they have not addressed, and that is on condition six. We're generally in agreement that we would not request a building permit until the final development plan. However, Mr. Lael had seeked to get a land disturbance permit to do some work on this property. If you're familiar with this property at all, it has sat vacant for a very, very long time. In fact, it's been on the vacant property review list before. Mr. Lale went in and cut out a bunch of the dead foliage, which does not require a permit, but wanted to do some grading on the property to make it more usable. You can't get a land disturbance permit until your final development plan is approved. So we would ask for an addition to that condition. and no building permit shall be issued for industrial use structures. We're not going to build anything until we have a final development plan, but it may take us some time to get there. As you're aware, this area is still on septic. It's probably going to require a pump station to get to the nearest line. There's not a gravity line that's available. It's going to be very expensive, and it's going to take some time to figure out exactly how we're going to do that. That's why we've deferred those issues to the final development plan, But we'd still like him to be able to do the improvements that he's seeking to do on the property, generally without building any industrial use, not undertaking the actual use. So we would ask for that minor change. Other than that, we're completely in agreement with the staff's recommendations. Would be happy to entertain any questions that you might have. Questions? Yes, sir? Let me get clarification. Number six then should read, no building permit shall be issued for industrial use structures. and then you go back and add the rest of it unless until that's just an insertion. Yes, sir. That would be our request. Thank you. Other questions? The possible improvements to Greendale and Spur Roads, have you all put a number to that yet? We haven't put a number to it yet. The adjacent property, the Kentucky Eagle Extension, I think you all just approved a development plan recently that said that those improvements are to be to the satisfaction of both LFUCG traffic engineering and the state transportation cabinet. I think at time of final development plan, we'll be looking for a comparable note. Obviously, our preference is not to do much. The traffic may ask for a little more. That's an ongoing discussion at this point. Frankly, as a resident of the area, I can tell you that both Spur and Greendale desperately need improvements. We're optimistic that the transportation cabinet will spearhead some of that effort to the extent that we need to do it. We're open to that possibility, but we'd like to resolve that at the time of final development plan. Other questions? Mr. Wahlberg, let me ask you, with your insertion of industrial use structures, are you talking about storage or does that include the office? That's a good question. Yeah, I'll let Rory tackle this one. It would, well, the improvements that he's talking about doing, he has purchased the property up front. And, you know, whether, even if you were to turn down his own change, he still wants to rehab the house. He wants to put on the one new bigger barn. He has agricultural uses that would go in there as well. And it's just been the delay through the process that he's not been able to do the work that he's going to do regardless of the zoning. We're trying to find a way that we can free him up so that he is not stuck, not making any improvements until we come back with a full final development plan. The only thing I'm wondering about is the repurposing a long-since abandoned house for an office, and were yet waiting to resolve sanitary sewer and final development plan? I think, well, that structure plus the other house, the two of them, they were both on an existing septic system. He's removed one of them. I believe that the remaining house would still function on that system, and it would be the change to an industrial use that would have to bring them into compliance with getting a sanitary sewer system to them. I understand where you are. I'm just questioning, would the office be part of the industrial use? So, decision we've got to make, I guess. Yeah. Until that time, it could still be a residence or whatever the rehab is. Roy, what are you going to do? Are you going to try to get a land disturbance permit? Is that what you said? Yeah, that was the one that was denied because we had filed a zone change. So you would go in there and clear everything out and put down the gravel? Yeah, we were trying to get a meeting where you'd have your silt fence up and you'd put in to get your clearing in as it had stood vacant for a while. I don't know if he attempted to get a permit for the new barn or not. I just know that he was stopped when he was getting the first disturbance permit so he could clean. He doesn't even need a permit for the barn? Under agricultural purposes, I don't think so. But if anyone's reviewing it in the same fashion that we filed the zone change, then he's stuck until... Just go down there and get it for us. Well, yeah, I was hoping he would have had some permits before we filed, but that didn't happen. Okay. I've expressed my concern. Let me ask Traffic if they want to weigh in on the ongoing discussion as far as this improvements are concerned. Good afternoon. I can give you an update. I have talked to the state, and I have e-mails, correspondence, and the state is also in favor of getting improvements to Greendale and Spur. I know there is ongoing discussions on Greendale becoming a city street and changing from the state. So we would still pursue those improvements. Okay. And it would be, at this time we're looking at, on Spur, it would be half section, shoulder, sidewalk. And on Greendale, it would be more curb and gutter. What's the cost of something like that? I don't have cost. I mean, they have a lot of frontage, and I feel like that kind of penalizes them. I understand. And that's, you know, in our office, from a traffic standpoint, we're trying to take that into account also. I think our viewpoint has ultimately come to the requesting an industrial zone. And so in order to have that industrial traffic on those roadways, the improvements need to be there, especially with we also have adjacent residential uses. So that vehicular traffic is going to be sharing the same facilities, which from a traffic viewpoint makes the importance of those improvements. Let me ask you then, you talk about industrial use. I mean, I can maybe see this along Spur Road, but Greendale, I don't know if you are going to use Greendale as some form of entrance or not, but that's pretty much a rural road. I don't know that, I can't imagine why you would use that for industrial purposes. Right. I could be wrong. I don't want to misspeak. I believe at one time they were proposing an entrance from Greendale. That may have changed. Our basis of looking at both Greendale and Spur from a larger view was that there have been improvements. Improvements to Greendale have been done on the residential sections that have been developed. I hear your concerns and I we have the same we have had those same concepts that it is a lot of frontage it's just I think the shape of the property and like I said creates the additional road frontage parts of that property really are not going to be totally usable because they're so narrow I just feel like we're penalize them. I would be more in favor of maybe spur road improvements. And I think at this time that's kind of why we had said these are the recommendations we are going for but ultimately at the final development plan kind of getting down to the details of maybe maybe we evaluate costs a little more closely and and see if maybe widening is a more important aspect and not doing the sidewalks. I know Scott Thompson is probably yelling at me right now, but just to accommodate the industrial traffic may be something more important, and if we get that, that's a good balance. And it will be something that I'm sure we'll discuss in a final development plan. Yeah. Anything else? Any other questions? Mr. Wahlberg, you stood up. Did you have anything else? I did. Just to build on that, we had that almost identical conversation with staff, with traffic and the applicant about the cost of we've got over 1,000 feet of road frontage versus the relatively small impact of the use that we're proposing. And I certainly won't speak for staff, but their point kind of was, well, but you're going for industrial zoning, So when you no longer have that property and have failed to improve it and a heavier use comes in, so there's kind of competing interests. We want our development to be viable and not supremely expensive to do. Staff has concerns, and that's why we've kind of agreed as these are in a state of flux, as we're working with the Transportation Cabinet, as we're figuring out what we can and can't actually do, it would make sense to defer those to the final development plan. That's how that decision came to be. So I think we'll be discussing it. I think we will. with more information hopefully absolutely thank you one further question mr. Sally as far as number six what they're asking this far as including industrial use structure staff have any comments on that Sorry, maybe I should have asked Kelly. No, that's okay. I was just conferring with staff. I am not in attendance on every meeting, so I want to make sure I give you good information. I don't believe that we had really considered that addition, but Mr. Martins told me that engineering will allow land disturbance for agricultural uses on the property. And even if you make a decision today on whether or not to recommend this rezoning, it will remain agricultural for several more weeks. So it seems from the staff's perspective there's at least a window that some light land disturbance could be possible on the property. As to the note, condition number six really is just straight out of Article 21 requirements. And I think the real issue perhaps is the dwelling and whether or not that should be allowed to convert to an office use prior to a final development plan. I think certainly the replacement building that's depicted on the preliminary plan, I think easily that would be covered by their proposed change. As to the office use, it's a little difficult to anticipate, if that's to remain agricultural for a time, that they would need an office of quite that size. It would seem more likely that the dwelling itself would be renovated. So I guess maybe the commission should consider whether that note should be expanded to say for office and industrial buildings. That would be the only comment I could really offer you constructively. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anything else? Any others? Anybody else want to speak on this? If not, commission have any other questions before I close? If not, I'll close this part of hearing, open it up for any discussion among commission members and or a motion. All right. I'll give it a shot here. Yes, sir. Mr. Sher, I'm going to move for approval of MAR 2016-7 in accordance with staff's recommendations with several changes under prohibited uses. Item J would like to strike in concrete products. and then the others are development plans so we'll wait on that. Okay. So motion's been made for approval with striking one item and it has been seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all that are in favor of this place say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. And move for approval of ZDP 2016-42, revising item 6 to read no building permit shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by a planning commission for office and or industrial use structures. number 13 would rate compliance with tree can be requirement to the approval of urban forester number 14 resolve possible improvements to green down spur roads at the time of final development plan and number 15 resolve connection to sewers or sanitary sewers at time of final development plan Motion has been made and seconded for approval with the changes of the four conditions. Any questions on motion? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Next. Where do we go? I believe we move to page 6, article in the middle of the page, article 23A, expansionary zoning categories and restrictions. 23A5, you do have a revision on the staff report that's on a vanilla sheet of paper, vanilla sheet of paper that's performed. Fade sheet. Maybe it's in your book. I'm sure Ms. Wade will tell you where this wonderful... Tab 5 in your notebooks. Is that what you... They gave it to me. I have no notebook. I do have one letter written to the commission for consideration from the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. I think we're still looking for the supplemental staff report. Oh, here it comes. Ms. White. Good afternoon. This is ZODA 2016-2, the amendment to Article 23A-5 for schools for academic instruction in the expansionary residential one zone. This is a request that's been made by the Christian Academy of the Bluegrass Incorporated. They're a nonprofit organization that is planning to expand an existing church to allow a school for academic instruction. They are currently located on Hume Road. Actually, it's kind of being spearheaded by the North Lexington Church of Christ, which is located on Hume Road. When they first came to the staff, their concern was that in the expansionary residential schools are listed in an EAR-2 and an EAR-3 zone, but not, in fact, in the EAR-1 zone at all. Churches, which they are, were added after the expansionary master plan and the original Article 23 were adopted for a very specific or with very specific criteria that allowed churches, Sunday schools, with or without child care in locations where the comprehensive plan recommends semi-public uses. And that came into play at that time because there were some very specific notations on the 2001 and then the 2007 comprehensive plan where semi-public uses had been recommended. that allowed that church to locate in an EAR1 zone. In fact, there's not really any other location that a church would be able to locate except on this Hume Road property based on that language. So the applicant with the existing church wants to add a principal use in the EAR1 zone to also have a school for academic instruction. As I mentioned earlier, that's churches or schools are allowed in the EAR2 and the EAR3 zones, as well as our transition area overlay and the CC zones. In the expansion area master plan, the boulevards and the greenways were used as the backbones of the expansion area, and they were intended to kind of focus that community center activity in certain locations. The churches and the schools are intended to be part of that community center activity. When the applicant brought in their request, the staff had some concern about locating a school as a principal use in all EAR1 locations in the expansion area. And I'm going to use the map over here just to show you where EAR1 zoning is proposed. So there's no EAR1 zoning in our expansion area 3, so we're going to focus here on the eastern side of the county, and then further to the south. EAR1 zoning is proposed along Winchester Road and then further south from there towards the interstate. It's also proposed along Hayes Boulevard, along Athens, Boonesboro, or Richmond Road, and along. And then again between Armstrong Mill and Tates Creek, very near or along the edge of the urban service boundary. So allowing schools in all of those locations gave the staff some concern. So we suggested a staff alternative text that would limit those churches. It also, in our estimation, sort of corrected the comprehensive plan note that occurs in the text today. Since that's our semi-public uses and our land use map is not really an active part of our comprehensive plan anymore, the staff felt it was important to really kind of strike that language and replace it with a recommendation that instead of it be located, or churches being located along, or in these semi-public locations, that they be located or restricted along either boulevards or arterials. And for some obvious reasons, schools can generate quite a bit of traffic. elementary schools and preschools have one certain traffic pattern but as you increase the age comes with that some additional ball fields and lighting and some other impacts that the staff was concerned about and having churches with schools located near those kind of arterials we thought would lessen some of the impacts of traffic the staff's alternative text was then to alter the principal use for churches and Sunday schools to be located along functionally classified collector boulevard or arterial roadways and instead of having a principal use a school for academic instruction the staff felt it would be an appropriate accessory use. If a church existed on a property already, you would be able to add a child care facility and schools for academic instruction limited to the kindergarten through eighth grade kind of age categories. That would eliminate some of the lighting that goes along with ball fields that typically is utilized for high schools. I understand because I wasn't in attendance at the zoning committee that there were some concerns raised by the neighborhood council as well as members of the zoning committee. And I think Mr. Sally is going to address those concerns and tell you a little bit about an alternative to the staff alternative. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. Again, Mr. Chairman, Commission members, my apology. This supplemental report was supposed to be at your place at the start of your meeting today, not the start of your hearing on this matter. Further, I'll say it's not. But I would like to walk you through the supplemental staff report. For those of you on the zoning committee, I think Ms. Wade's comments will ring familiar because we did have, I would estimate, 20 minutes or more of discussion about this text amendment proposal three weeks ago at your committee meeting. There was considerable discussion. We used that term in our supplemental report to you, primarily because the staff expressed its concern about large schools locating in this zone. As you know, schools are permitted in the other expansionary residential zones, 2 and 3. but they have not been permitted up to now in the EAR1 zone. And we have less land zoned EAR1 than we do EAR2 in the expansionary areas that have developed and the ones that have been rezoned or not developed. The staff began by researching the trip generation of a school. And our purpose in this was to try and determine whether or not our concerns that we expressed to you three weeks ago at the committee were valid or not. Mr. Emmons took a look at the ITE manual, which is the industry standard for trip generation, and that is a document also used when the staff entertains an applicant who is interested in filing a zone change to advise them whether or not a traffic impact study might be necessary with their zone change. A school of 110 students is the one that meets the threshold in our zoning ordinance for requiring a traffic impact study. That's a fairly small school. But that did, in the staff's mind, affirm our initial concern with the Texas Amendment as it was proposed just to have schools as a new principal use. We attempted to address the limitation for schools. And initially, three weeks ago, we suggested that the limit be the grades that could be accommodated in the school. And as you will see on the original staff report and also on the supplemental report, our initial recommendation was to limit them to kindergarten through eighth grade. That may have been the trigger for your long discussion at the zoning committee meeting because the applicant was not interested in that limitation. They have a much broader curriculum planned for their facility. The staff did consider possibly limiting the number of students. However, that could entail very easily a zoning enforcement issue for the staff by having to count heads or enrollment figures or things of that nature. What the staff has settled on in an attempt to resolve, if you will, the zoning committee issues that were discussed considerably was to go ahead and eliminate the restriction the staff had offered for the grades of instruction and leave schools as an accessory use to a church. The concept here is that if there is an existing church, it does make sense from the staff perspective to allow that church to offer its gymnasium, its Sunday school space for academic instruction during the week. That seems to us a very logical and efficient use of our land as a community and also for the churches themselves to make better use of their facilities more than just on evenings and weekends. However, for an independent school that would not be affiliated with a church, we would suggest adding that as a conditional use, along with the same restriction about churches, that they must be on an arterial or a collector boulevard type of roadway. That would be an expansion of this use, but by enabling the Board of Adjustment to review them on a site-by-site basis, it would involve notification to area property owners, notification to nearby neighborhoods, and at least a consideration of all the issues with any potential site for a school in the EAR1 zone. And, of course, this text amendment, as I mentioned, will not affect the EAR2 or the EAR3 zones at all, since those are already permitted in those zones. The staff has made a change to the text, and if I could refer you to the bottom of the supplemental report. Under accessory uses, we are proposing to strike the limitation on kindergarten through eighth grade for schools for academic instruction as an accessory use to a church. In the principal use section, there is no change from what the staff recommended to you three weeks ago at your zoning committee, and that be that churches and Sunday schools no longer be tied to the comprehensive plan designation, but rather to their location either on a collector boulevard street or an arterial. And then the new provision that I've described is in 23A5D, adding a new conditional use for schools for academic instruction with the same locational criteria we have for churches as a permitted use. Our findings have not changed, with one exception. Findings 1, 2, and 3 that we offered three weeks ago and which appear on your agenda are the same. Generally, staff recommends approval of now the revised staff alternative subject to four findings. One, the text amendment is a timely revision to update our zoning provisions. Two, the amendment will permit more flexibility and encourage dual and efficient use of church properties. Three, the proposed text amendment will allow for churches or other religious assembly uses to efficiently utilize their facilities throughout the week. And then the fourth finding is new with the supplemental report. The addition of a new conditional use allowing schools located along major collector or arterial streets will alleviate some of the concerns expressed by the applicant after reviewing the initial comments offered by the staff and those in attending at the zoning committee's meeting on the subject. I'll be glad to answer any questions from the commission. We've attempted to resolve as many issues as we could from three weeks ago, but you will be the judge as to whether we were successful in that or not. Thank you, Mr. Saleh. Any questions for Mr. Saleh? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy here representing Christian Academy of the Bluegrass. Tammy Lewis is with me on the front row. Tammy is one of the founding board members of Christian Academy of the Bluegrass. and we are in agreement with the revised staff recommendation that Mr. Selle gave you. We agree with that solution. We thank Mr. Selle and other members of the staff for meeting with us and discussing our particular concerns with it. I just wanted to give you a little more background on it, why we filed the original text amendment request. Our original request was just to make schools a principal use in the EAR1 zone. We had two reasons for initially talking to the staff about a possible text amendment. One is that Christian Academy of the Bluegrass is being founded by a number of members of North Lexington Church of Christ, which is on Hume Road. It's a new church, fairly large church on Hume Road, although it won't be limited to that church. They have other members organizing it, too, but that's sort of where it started. And they have thought about initially starting in North Lexington Church of Christ and using that building. Eventually, they hope to get to the point where they can go somewhere else in their own building in a freestanding structure. So we were concerned about the zoning for North Lexington Church of Christ and then also just zoning in general for when the school got big enough to have its own freestanding building. We found, interestingly enough, that for North Lexington Church of Christ, which is in the EAR1 zone, that daycare was allowed as an accessory or as a part of our church, but schools weren't. So, now, North Lexington Church of Christ doesn't have either a daycare or a school at this point, but if they wanted to open a 100-child daycare, they could have done so, but they couldn't open a 100-child school on it. So we were hoping to resolve that, which this amendment does. And also, we were trying to think about when they moved off to another site, and this amendment takes care of that situation as well. I wanted to reassure you that even if you pass this text amendment, the EAR1 zone will still be the most restrictive zone for freestanding schools out of most all of our zoning categories. Because right now, in the agricultural zones, AR and AU, schools for academic instruction are a conditional use. Now, this text amendment proposes that they be conditional use also, but restrictions on what streets they can be located on, arterials and collectors that are boulevards. AR and AU, they're conditional uses, but they don't have restrictions on what kind of streets a school can go on. Similarly, in R1, R1A, B, C, D, E, and T, I think, schools for academic construction are also conditional use. without restrictions on what streets they're on, same as R3 and R4. So as I said, we're in agreement with the staff recommendation that they've made to you, but we just wanted to reassure you that even after this tax amendment, this will still be the most restrictive zone for freestanding schools. EAR 2 and 3, I think there's no limitations either on streets where they can go. But this does address the two concerns we had. We think it's a good alternative. If they can't pass the one we asked for, we certainly want you to pass the one that the staff is requesting you to do. And with that, we thank you for your consideration, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience like to speak on this? Yes, sir. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. We support the staff's final recommendations on this. Churches, church schools, church daycares, church institutions for academics, they're desirable for neighborhoods, they're community institutions. They gather people together. They're inherently desirable. We were concerned with the original request that it become a principal use and go anywhere in the EAR1 zone. because of potential infrastructure problems, because we know from being in neighborhoods and being around developments that sometimes a development will go in or be approved without necessary infrastructure. And we're pleased with the staff compromise and recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak on this? Commission members, questions, comments? If not, I'll close this part of hearing. We'll open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of ZODA 2016-2 with the revised conditions proposed by staff and for the four reasons stated by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval to revise staff recommendations for Zoda 2016-2. Any questions? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Moving on, I think Ms. Barb Rackers coming up for a PFR 2016-1. Staff report on University of Kentucky School of Music and WKY 91.3 FM. Back out in our favorite neighborhood for the last. Okay, before we get started, would it be easier for you to see? I should have made this bigger, but I apologize. Would it be easier for you to see if it's here or if it's over here on the easel? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Pass it around. Can you blow that up? Barbara, just pass the paper. Yeah, just pass the paper. Otherwise, I'm going to need binoculars. Okay. Okay. Okay. This made it very easy because being down here, we've got all of this right here. This is just what we need. PFR 2016-1 is a request by the University of Kentucky to occupy the building at 2640 Spur Road, which is this building right here. We've got Spur Road, Greendale, Innovation Drive is over here, and then Georgetown Road is about a quarter mile to the east. They want to relocate WUKY, which is their public radio station, and the School of Music's taping and recording studio to this property. They'll be renovating the existing building, and then they'll be adding three small prefabricated buildings, and those show in that little cluster pretty much on there. The cluster has the transmission building and the shop, and then down close to the parking area, down in this area right here is where they'll have their storage building. They also want to put up a 189-foot monopole broadcasting tower, and that'll be in that cluster also, which would be up in this area right here. And as you probably know, this was the former site of the St. Clair Recording Studio. The existing building is a two-story building, and it contains about 8,800 square feet, probably a little bit more than that. It was built in 2003 to accommodate the recording studio after the property was rezoned from AR to I-1. It had been dedicated to UK, and then they purchased it in June of last year to house UKWISE taping and broadcasting facilities and the School of Music's recording studio in the taping rooms. In the staff report from that zone change, it stated that the property was not to develop until it was sewered and until the road improvements were made. Well, it did, and they're not yet. There is still a septic system on the property, and it's still served by septic, except in this area right here. but as you probably remember a couple of weeks ago or maybe a month ago we had the discussion about the Sam's property and the Larkin property which is these two properties right here and the sanitary sewer will be connected from that property to to this property and then it'll be maintained and privately owned it'll be a private sanitary sewer easement and then the roadway improvements were a discussion item on the development plan and those will be done also as that property develops. The project includes interior reconfiguration of the existing building. The studios will be changed into new broadcasting and news taping booths and a control room. And the remainder of the space will just have minor renovations like flooring and paint and that kind of thing. There's going to be no expansion of the existing building and they will leave the existing satellite dishes which are about in this area right here. The small prefab buildings and the broadcasting tower with the six-foot fence around it and the parking are the only new construction that they're doing, and they're going to increase it from 13 to 36 basis because there will be students coming to the property, there will be employees coming to the property, so they will be using Greendale Road and Spur Road. There's an option for an elevator tower, but that will depend on the final construction costs because it is a two-story building, and they probably have handicapped students and possibly some handicapped employees, who knows. there's an option for that but it'll depend on how that goes as far as the funded budget and the construction costs of the entire renovation of the project UK offers a Bachelor of Arts in the recording arts field and along with UKY it'll be used for part of their curriculum for that program they'll record some of the School of Music's annual performances like their fine night for singing or grand night for singing or whatever it's called their opera performance and that kind of thing and that'll be used for both teaching and performing purposes. This move is important for that reason. It'll give them a new and improved space, a larger space, and it'll free up space on main campus so that they can use that for more typical academic use. The School of Music has gotten several of awards and it's received national recognition for its high caliber of music education in the performing arts, and this will help to ensure that that continues. There are several goals and objectives that support this, and those are all listed on page two of your staff report, and then there's one more at the top of page three. And the community facilities section and Destination 2040 both support this. They both reference provision of facilities and services as it relates to making Fayette County a desirable community. Generally, that kind of thing is like hospitals, schools, utilities, and that kind of thing. But it also applies to the provision of public radio and the provision of arts, the access to the arts. And that's just as important to the quality of life as the more tangible things for making Fayette County a desirable place to live. My sister moved here from Indiana four years ago. She's loved it here because of that reason. So it says something, I think. It'll enhance the quality of UK's broadcasting and its quality of education at UK, and that in itself provides support for this. We find this to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for that reason, and because the property has been used as a recording studio since 2003, It's only now owned by UK and that's why the additional review is necessary. There are several goals and objectives as well as the text of the plan that support the project as does Destination 2040. There's no longer a land use map for the comprehensive plan, but the previous land use map recommended light industrial use for the property and the Division of Building Inspection has historically made the interpretation that a recording studio is appropriate for I-1. The property was re-zoned in 2003 from AR to I-1 to accommodate an almost identical use to what is being proposed by UK. And we don't have any recommendations as far as what might make it more in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be happy to answer them. And Mr. Armstrong is here from UK to answer any questions, any technical questions you might have about the project. Where is the tower located right now? The existing power attendant, you know? Patterson Office. Patterson Office. Oh, what are you going to do with that? Leave it up? It will come down. Oh. I'm not sure of the elevation. When do you get him up to the microphone? Sure. I'm sorry. No, that's okay. Good afternoon, Chairman and Committee. I'm Tim Option with Planning at UK. In regards to your question, Mr. Wilson, on the tower, it's existing right now on the Patterson office tower. And I'm not sure the actual elevation of what it is, but that tower will no longer be required. There's no co-location of any other entity on that tower, just that one single? That's correct. It's just a broadcasting tower. Yes, and when they move out here, there'll be a 189-foot monopole, just a single pole with some guide wires. Thank you. Other questions? I guess I've got a couple. Barb, Mr. Wilson mentioned it. Co-location? Are there any co-location possibilities on this? It depends on, I would say it probably depends on the structure of the tower itself. If it's a steel monopole, that would be a possibility. they would have to come to the Planning Commission. Well, no they wouldn't actually. If it's a co-location they wouldn't. If it was a new tower construction they would have to come to the Planning Commission. But if they want to co-locate, say for example AT&T wanted to co-locate on there, if it was structurally sound they could go ahead and co-locate on there without going through the regular process. They would just have to get a permit from building inspection. And then the second thing, looking at the map, it looks like there's tailing fencing around the tower. Around the, yes. Usually we ask for cell towers. We're not talking about broadcast tower, but around the transmission boxes, housing the transmission components and so forth. The transmission components, I think, are going to be inside the building, right? That's correct. You come back. Yes. Those buildings are like a pre-engineering building of a masonry structure. You've seen them if you've driven by an AT&T tower or something. Oh, yeah. We purchased some used ones and going to repurpose them. Right now, the plan only shows a six-foot fence around the monopole tower. We can accommodate to incorporate the building, but we figured the building was secure enough, being a masonry structure, that we didn't really need to put a chain link fence around the building. But that's not something we could not do. We could easily do that. And that's not regulated by the zoning ordinance. It's only required by the zoning ordinance for cell towers. So that's why they do it. True. But, you know, the only thing I'm looking at, this is very akin to a cell tower as far as looks and so forth. The use may be different. So, you know, my only thoughts would be ask as far as recommendation. that's all we can do as far as fencing and then also landscaping around the fencing. One quick question. Yes, sir. Yes. I don't have the map in front. Do they also have satellite dishes as well? There are satellite dishes that are already on the property, and those are right about there. Are they going to be used either? It tends to reuse them. We don't know about the 100% reuse of those. If not, there are going to be some satellite dishes that would be moved from UK's property out to there to be used. I'm not quite sure what they use them exactly for other than to broadcast back to University of Kentucky or some other place where they can then also send out their signal from another remote tower if this tower goes down. I was going to ask you what we're going to use them for. Unfortunately, I don't have a specific answer for that. It would be used as far as a secondary use of broadcasting. if they have to send a signal to another location to broadcast if this tower goes down. That's not usable. Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Yes, sir. There's also an emergency generator that will be out here in that same area. It's identified on the drawing. 250 KW generator that will be. Is that generator going to be above ground or below? It's going to be sitting on the ground on a concrete pad. I think it's number three on that drawing. Right there. Up from the dishes. That's the reserve generator? Yeah. Back up. Okay, they call it UPS. Okay. But that's okay. Any other questions? If not, thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. If there's no further questions, I'll close this part of the hearing. I'll end up for any discussion and or motion. Yes, we're ahead. If there's any discussion, Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PFR 2016-1, University of Kentucky School of Music, NWUKY 91.3 FM. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of PFR 2016-1. Any discussion? Mr. Wilson, would you be interested in recommending any fencing or landscaping? No, I'm just kidding. Whatever you... It's your motion, sir. What was the fencing? I forgot about what it was. Around the tower. Around the tower, yeah. In addition, around the tower and the auxiliary building. That's agreeable. Just the transmission building or both of them? The transmission building. It looks like there's two of them there. Yeah, one I would say is a shop. They've got transmission equipment. As far as landscaping, 360 towards the road or whatever. Yeah, I agree with everything he's in. Okay. We do have a second on down the way. That's fine. Okay. Motion been made and seconded for approval with now one recommendation required pence in the landscaping room. Any questions? If not, everybody in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Something on your mind. Just a couple of things to remind you all of. We're at the conclusion of the agenda, and we'll see you all next week, the beginning of the month, for committees on Thursday on the seventh floor. And then to give you all a heads up for a meeting that's not on your schedule but you may be interested in, the Urban County Council has asked that we make a presentation to the Planning and Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, June 14th at 1 o'clock regarding the recreation ZODA. You all may recall that you all approved that last summer, and that has been in Council's hands since. We gave them a presentation on this sort of in their caucus room without an audience, so to speak, in November, and then they have removed it from the table, I believe, and we'll be putting that up for consideration or at least for presentation at the Planning and Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, June 14th, at 1 o'clock, not 1.30, 1 o'clock, in the council chambers. That will be open to the public. And under staff items, we do have an APA audio conference June 29th, 4 to 5.30, Barb. I'm sure it will be fun and lighting, yeah, a planning law review. There you go. Any other items the commission members want to bring up? Audience items? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Sallee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted very quickly to introduce the Planning Commission to the newest member of our planning staff, Ms. Debbie Woods. To my left is our new administrative specialist, and she'll be attending your meetings on your zoning day. She's basically taking over the duties that Stephanie Cunningham has performed for you for many years. We just want to introduce you to her and certainly welcome her to the planning staff. Thank you. Yes, welcome. And everyone, please look. If you didn't receive an email from her, it may be sitting in a trash bin since it would be the first one that she would have sent to you. So get to know her well. But welcome. Anything else? If not, motion for adjournment. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Meeting adjourned. Thank you folks.